# The "G Wagon" (Iltis replacment for Recce & the Reg Force)



## Scoobie Newbie

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Feature_Story/2004/feb04/09-2_f_e.asp


----------



## Franko

Seen the Dutch used them in theater. They seem a bit better than the Iltis...we‘ll soon see.

Regards


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It would be nice if we got a vehicle on a 1 to 1 exchange for change! Actually if they want to increase the numbers in the forces, they will have to do a 1.5 for 1 exchange.

I hate to say this, but perhaps they should stockpile the Iltis and use them for reserve training, better an old vehicle then no vehicle.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs

What will be done with the Iltis stocks we have now? I certainly hope they wont be scrapped...


----------



## Slim

The posted article says that the G wagon has not been named yet and will continue to be known as the G wagon until it is.

With the aggressive names that our vehicles have been getting lately they will probably name it something really scary...Like "The Kitten" perhaps...  :skull:


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

More like the "G1"


----------



## AlphaCharlie

or G-Unit... rofl


----------



## Jeff Boomhouwer

VOLKSPANZERWAGON mark 1


----------



## Brad Sallows

I hope it doesn‘t have a retaining strap.  The nickname will be unbearable.


----------



## Spr.Earl

> Originally posted by Sh0rtbUs:
> [qb] What will be done with the Iltis stocks we have now? I certainly hope they wont be scrapped... [/qb]


Given to the Militia?


----------



## Spartan

as far as I know, the Iltis have to be taken in/returned to take off the radios etc in order to put them on the g-wagons..


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I thought the Reserves were getting the Milverado?


----------



## Spartan

armoured/recce will be getting both so I‘ve been told...
don‘t know about everyone else


----------



## gate_guard

> Originally posted by Symchyshyn:
> [qb] as far as I know, the Iltis have to be taken in/returned to take off the radios etc in order to put them on the g-wagons.. [/qb]


The iltis‘ radios are the same as the man pack ones. You can go from man portable to vehicle setup in a matter of minutes and vice versa. Who ever told you this has obviously never used them.


----------



## George Wallace

> Originally posted by gate_guard:
> The iltis‘ radios are the same as the man pack ones. You can go from man portable to vehicle setup in a matter of minutes and vice versa. Who ever told you this has obviously never used them.


The Radios are easy enough to remove, however, it is the $60,000 TCCS radio harness that will have to be removed and recycled.

GW


----------



## Michael Dorosh

> Originally posted by Spr.Earl:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally posted by Sh0rtbUs:
> [qb] What will be done with the Iltis stocks we have now? I certainly hope they wont be scrapped... [/qb]
> 
> 
> 
> Given to the Militia? [/qb]
Click to expand...

No, we are getting the new vehs also.  They may be surplused off; there are already some Canadian Iltises in private hands.  We had one (privately owned) at the local gun show last year in mint condition; it had kit I‘d never even seen in the Militia.  

Can‘t understand why anyone would want them, but some guys seem keen on it.


----------



## gate_guard

> Originally posted by George Wallace:
> [qb] The Radios are easy enough to remove, however, it is the $60,000 TCCS radio harness that will have to be removed and recycled.
> GW [/qb]


I figured it‘d be the harness being removed. 60 large for a piece of metal I could make in a shop in a few hours, nice.


----------



## George Wallace

> Originally posted by gate_guard:
> [qb] I figured it‘d be the harness being removed. 60 large for a piece of metal I could make in a shop in a few hours, nice. [/qb]


Do you make fibre optic cable and switches in your shop too?  :soldier:  

GW


----------



## Franko

TARGET...TARGET STOP! 

Good shooting George   

Regards


----------



## bossi

Just stumbled across this:

G-Wagen commercial


----------



## btk_joker

I hate my computer...


----------



## wongskc

LOL    :tank:    That‘s good


----------



## babicma

An Afghan Airlines Boeing 727 taxis past one of the eighteen newly arrived G Wagon light utility vehicles at the airport in Kabul. The G Wagons, which will be used as replacements for the ILTIS jeep by the Battle Group of the 3rd Battalion Royal 22nd Regiment from Valcartier, QC, for patrolling Canada‘s Area of Responsibility (AOR) in the city of Kabul, arrived early this morning via Antonov transport aircraft.






The first 18 of 60 Mercedes-Benz G-Wagon landed at Kabul‘s airport on Friday, 5 March 2004. The G-Wagons will replace the aging fleet of Iltis vehicles used by Canada‘s Army.


----------



## dano

It‘s almost as if.... You‘re seeing a difference.

 

*Flick‘s tear from eye*


----------



## chrisp1j

Are they still using the AN-126s to transport the equipment over (those huge Russian planes that take off from Trenton at 0300 and wake everyone up two hours early)?

BTW: Those wagons are looking pretty good. Hopefully they preform as good as they look.


----------



## patrick666

What‘s the horsepower/torque on one of those G wagons?


----------



## babicma

G Wagon Technical Specifications

VARIANTS: 3 (Basic, Command and Reconnaissance, Military Police) 
TYPE: 4 Pax Station Wagon 
ENGINE: 5-cylinders 
DRIVETRAIN: 4X4 permanent all-wheel drive, 5-speed automatic 
TIRES: Michelin XZL 8.25R16 with optional run-flat inserts. 
FORDING ABILITY: 600mm 
GROUND CLEARANCE: 43.9cm 
SIDE SLOPE ANGLE: 30 º 
APPROACH ANGLE: 40 º 
GRADEABILITY: 60 percent 
PAYLOAD: 1 500 kg Max (incl APS)


----------



## jbeach95

Why did they decide to purchase the G-Wagon, which is just a modified civilian vehicle, instead of something like the O‘Gara-Hess M1114 (a Humvee variant)? You can at least mount a machine gun on an M1114.   :fifty:


----------



## bossi

Beach - you‘ve got it backwards:
The G-Wagon was a military design first, the Mercedes G-500 is the civvie version which followed (similar to the civvie Humvee‘s you see driving around town - military vehicle first, civvie "Look Cool Factor" second).

There was a competition held, and GM withdrew their bid - this left Mercedes the winner by default (once again, Liberal party politics - Herb Gray was the Deputy PM at the time, and Chrysler is in his riding, and Mercedes is part of the conglomerate ...)

Having said that, I‘m led to believe these vehicles are actually made in Europe (which probably explains why they were able to accelerate their delivery).

I‘ve ridden in an earlier 2-door variant, and I‘m SOOOOO relieved to see we bought the 4-door (the back seat of the 2-door was a ‘death trap‘) - my German buddies were adamant that they preferred the 4-door, too.

Now, if we could only buy enough of them for the entire Army, instead of having a split fleet ... sigh ...


----------



## jbeach95

Thanks for the clairfication.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

http://www.specwarnet.com./vehicles/ifav.htm


----------



## Jason Bourne

*sigh* stealing our ideas...lol


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I would give my left *** to drive their Fast Attack Vehicle.


----------



## D-n-A

why not, they already have our LAVS


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Well to be fair they have been using a varient of the LAV long before we had it.


----------



## girlfiredup

Wow, that‘s a serious vehicle.  I‘d like to drive that in downtown rush hour traffic and fire at every vehicle that tries to cut me off.  Gives road rage a whole new meaning.


----------



## chk2fung

Boy do I ever want a G-wagon.  A couple of weeks ago when I went home I saw a couple of the G500 being driven by hockey mom‘s down my street brining a bunch of their kids to practice.  What a sweet looking ride.  Quite a contrast too with what they are doing in Afghanistan.

Charles


----------



## Korus

Aye, that IFAV look pretty sweet.

I think, though, that the civvie g500 with hardtop looks ugly as ****. Give me a Jeep anyday.


----------



## Jason Bourne

mmmmmmmm...Fast Attack Vehicles...yummy


----------



## Zlatorog

Better then what we had, Still should have went with GM or Ford vehicle with light and medium truck versions.


----------



## rdschultz

why GM or ford?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

The Iltis replacement MILCOTS sure looks like a GM pickup to me. And before anyone says "Yeah, but the MILCOTS is a militia vehicle", remember, so was the Bison. How many Reserve Units own those?


----------



## Jeff Boomhouwer

Milcots? You must mean milverado.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

MILCOTS - Military Commercial Off The Shelf = Proper Designation

Milverado = MO Nickname


----------



## ghazise

The IFAV is used mainly by Force Recon, the IFAV was their primary vechicle is Afghanstan but not really used too much in Iraq.  The IFAV has been in the inventory for about 6 years and doesn‘t have all the bells and whistles as the CND G-Wagon.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Little off topic here but do I read your profile right that you spent 5 years in the Marines and now reside in Winnipeg?  I ask because I am from Winnipeg and your location peaked my interest.


----------



## CI Dumaran

> Originally posted by Jason Bourne:
> [qb] *sigh* stealing our ideas...lol [/qb]


The USMC and the CF are linked by the "Dangles"

CADPAT, and... the G-Wagon!

Grr.. LOL


----------



## rice

> Originally posted by Jason Bourne:
> [qb] *sigh* stealing our ideas...lol [/qb]


not really, since they had them like a good 5 years before we got ours


----------



## BDTyre

If anything, the Germans used the G-Wagens for military purposes first.


----------



## ghazise

When the CF purchased the G-wagons, was a parts supply block included into the contract???

Example:  800 G-wagons, with a 10% load of Secoundary Repairable (Engines Tranny‘s), and 10%parts supply (nuts, bolts, tires)


----------



## CI Dumaran

Not sure.. that‘s a good question.


----------



## buglog1

In the pic near the bottom of the attached page it appears that the G Wagon is equipped with a snorkel.  But the intake is facing aft. Why is that? Dust? 

G Wagon


----------



## scm77

What‘s attached to the roof?  Is it just an extra spot to put stuff?


----------



## ZipperHead

I believe that is in fact a "snorkel" (sounds good to me). 

That would allow you to take the vehicle into water to a level higher than if you didn‘t (lest water get into the air-filter, engine, etc). 

I don‘t know the spec‘s on how deep of water it can ford, but it what be better than that of the Iltis it is replacing. I "swam" one once in a long shallow puddle. Kind of fun until the water started filling the vehicle through the little holes in the floorboards. 

If you look at the LandRovers, etc that other nations use, they have similar setups. I think I‘ve seen it on civvy pattern SUV‘s that NGO‘s and others use.

Al


----------



## Zoomie

Theoretically you could ford the vehicle as deep as the snorkel height.  Mind you, the driver would drown!

Probably not too many areas in Afghanistan where the Vandoos will be able to try out its fording ability.


----------



## IceHawk

I see they still have oil pans, even under the new vehicles, do the americans do that as well or is it a canadian thing? having oil pans under all our vehicles...


----------



## Scratch_043

Probably just the guys in the motor pool trying to keep the oil that may leak from the engine off the ground, thus reducing cleanup, and also environmental impact.


----------



## George Wallace

> Originally posted by IceHawk:
> [qb] I see they still have oil pans, even under the new vehicles, do the americans do that as well or is it a canadian thing? having oil pans under all our vehicles... [/qb]


It is a European thing!  It started in Europe in the late Eighties and spread over here.  The Green Party and the Environmentalists started it all.  Drip pans under any vehicles that were stationary for long periods.  Drip pans under Fuel caps while refueling.  Drip pans under POL products stacked in the field.  Drip pans everywhere.  Then came ‘No Driving through rivers and streams‘.  Then came the Porta Potties/Blue Rockets.  Then came "No Cutting of Cam".  Followed soon after by no digging of trenches, unless they were properly refilled....ad nausium.  

The Armed Forces have gone "GREEN".

GW


----------



## IceHawk

Is all that really necessary? I mean my car isn‘t even new and it doesn‘t drip anything except for coolant ocaisionally but that‘s because there is a crack somewhere in the line and when the temp is right it leaks but still, I mean it seems a little excessive to me.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Necessary or not. It‘s a matter of that‘s what we‘re told to do. May be a waste, maybe not, but it‘s not our descision. You don‘t have to like it, you just have to do it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

As the Canada might have to pay the cost of the clean up of the base site (this will be a first for afghanistan!) it makes sense to keep the area fairly clean. We were using drip trays in the 70‘s and they were old then.

Snorkels are fairly comman for this type of vehicle. Often there will be small tubes attached for the axle, tranny breathers. I had one on my diesel landrover and I have forded that to chest height. when going through moving water, you must allow the vehicle to flood or you will be washed downstream, not to bad when crossing a cold clean mountain stream, but sucks in a muddy river. Once you get home you will have your work cut out for you, getting the water out of everything.


----------



## Scratch_043

yeah, I can imagine that there might be some problems there.

Just don‘t touch the wet wires(_Bzzzttt_)


----------



## buglog1

Yeah - it is called a snorkel for sure - at least that is what the one on my Jeep is called.  I did not know that the G Wagon was going to be equipped with them (but why would I?) - just caught my eye.  I was more or less wondering if it was oriented ‘backwards‘ (it is all perception I guess) due to high amounts of dust.

Colin - you are right about mud - man - after crossing some muddy areas I have a lot of cleaning to do at least an hour with a high pressure washer or else I have a hi-speed ‘death wobble‘ from the mud caked in my rims.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Some snorkels have a "pre-cleaner" built in to reduce the amount of dust that gets to the filter. Often it is a rotating Plenum that kicks the dust back out. They do create more noise as you can hear the sucking quite a bit, sort of like our electon.


----------



## DOOG

Greetings All..
I just took a look at the latest "Maple Leaf mag". There is a picture of buddy doin some C-6 shootin from a G-Wagen C and R version.
I seem to remember us always telling our soldiers to "keep low" in the hatch". We did it in Cougars, in Lynxs and even in the old jeeps.
By the looks of this you might as well have a big neon sign over your head saying "kill this soldier now". You can see all of his body from the bottom of his cbt coat up. I find it hard to belive that nobody could come up with a lower profile gun mount for this truck. It should at least have a "shielded mount".
Does anyone out there in Cavalry country agree?


----------



## Horse_Soldier

It would be hard to disagree.   That mount is about twice or three times as high as it needs to be.   I'd hate to be the crew commander firing that thing on the move - one small bump and he'll get an impromtu airborne course.   I hope whoever gets first delivery of those gems writes a UCR between now and when we'll get our "fleet" at the unit next year.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Was it at a range or in the "field"?


----------



## George Wallace

Being as it is on the GWagen, I imagine it to be the standard 'German' mount.  Even on the Leopard the mount for the C6 is relatively high, because it is not meant for ground engagements, but for AA engagements.

I doubt if it will be the Crew Commander firing this weapon, but most likely the GIB.

GW


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Ahh , the GIB. George , that's one of the things we're going to have to determine. Right now, it makes sense for the CC to be in the hole. He can't see from the passenger seat, and it's easier for the observer to dismount from the front seat. Problem is, last I heard, there was no headset drop to the hole, hence no way to command the crew by I/C


----------



## McG

CFL said:
			
		

> Was it at a range or in the "field"?


Train as you fight.  Even if it were on a range the shooter should keep a low profile.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Problem is, last I heard, there was no headset drop to the hole, hence no way to command the crew by I/C


Would that not also make it impossible for the CC in the passenger seat to command a gunner in the hatch?


----------



## George Wallace

Looks like we have a predicament that will have to be resolved.  What is the proper location for the CC in the GWagen?  Does he stand exposed and behind everyone in the hatch with the gun or does he sit inside, unable to use all his senses to the best of their abilities?  How will we maintain comms between the crewmembers?  Who controls when and how the wpn is to be used?

Interesting?

GW


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I don't see it as too much of a dilemma. Put a comms drop up there and treat it like any other AFV. It's why we teach the guys to command from the back seat on the DP3. So they're not pointing and saying' Take me there". They have to verbally instruct the driver to the position, same as a turreted vehicle. The CC manned the main (C5) in the scout car and the .50 in the Lynx, why not the G Wagon. It'll be his decision to fire, cut out the middle man. When CC'ing they'll have to stay head and shoulders out only, be kinda hard to check behind with that tin can lid sticking up though. There'll be lots of mounts for different weapon systems. If not suitable, we'll just have to UCR the hell out of the project people. Let's just get the veh out there first and let the operators trial it, instead of some guy in an office with Auto Cad.


----------



## scm77

recceguy said:
			
		

> If not suitable, we'll just have to UCR the hell out of the project people.



What is UCR?  I've seen it in a bunch of threads.  Is it some sort of complaint form?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Unsatisfactory Condition Report - it's what we send in to the bean counters to tell them that the product they developed without our input is no f***ing good, and here's what we need to replace it with.


----------



## Gayson

A question, who is the GIB?  What does this stand for.


I've heard word lately, at least in the Rangers that we may be switching from a 7 car troop org to an 8 car troop org with the G-Wagons.


----------



## McG

Guy(s) In Back


----------



## KevinB

Having driven and been in the gunner seat of the Gwagon C&R - it is of necessity that height.
Lower and you won't be able to depress the gun enough to be usefull (this is the only close in protection the Gwaon has...)

It has a CI box and the gunner is on comms with the driver or commander.

It was a Band-Aid solution - none of the vehicles in Canada will be of this variant we are told.  Prior to us deploying we had some Armoured variants - but apparently this was an aberation and the vehicles in country should be a light configuration (no armd doors, windows or roof) much more like the other colaition Gwagon here (and more useful)

Secondly none of the MO will be getting Gwagons as it stand now either.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Kevin,

The Project Management Office has already posted the list of what Units will receive the G Wagon, including CFR's and type. The Reserve Armomured Recce units are slated to receive the unarmoured C&R version. It's all on their website, let me try find it. May not be able to get at it without DWAN access.

Good to hear they put a comms drop up there though. Does that mean there is a capability for three headsets, or did they just move one from the front seat?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

By stating none in Canada will have this variant do you mean that they won't have the cupola.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Armoured Recce Reserve in Canada will get the C&R version, with the cupola. It is also not a one off design. It is one of the three variants provided for in the buy. Basic, C&R and MP variant.


----------



## q_1966

Does anyone know what this new G-wagon, thats replacing the Iltis looks like
can someone post a picture an maybe some specs.

- Shawn


----------



## SEB123

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


----------



## q_1966

I Think G-wagon & the Iltis are both ugly, but at least the iltis sort of looked cool, and will the new wagon, when filiped over, be able to be push back over with 2 or 3 people

-Shawn


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Quote from Zoomie:
_____________________________________________________________________________________
"*Theoretically you could ford the vehicle as deep as the snorkel height*." 
_____________________________________________________________________________________
The Canadian version can only ford up to the bottom of the running boards. The drainage is not sufficient and the internal electronics are not sealed.


----------



## KevinB

recceguy said:
			
		

> Quote from Zoomie:
> _____________________________________________________________________________________
> "*Theoretically you could ford the vehicle as deep as the snorkel height*."
> _____________________________________________________________________________________
> The Canadian version can only ford up to the bottom of the running boards. The drainage is not sufficient and the internal electronics are not sealed.



Too true.
I did my Gwagon conversion course here and learned that the snorkle was in fact just a bling bling accessory that eally does F*%K all


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I had the rep from Magna Steyr, in Austria, as my instructor. 

Me - " So we can ford this thing up to just below the snorkle inlet, ja?"

Him - " Nein, Nein, it is Kanadisch package! Not American. They have a grill in the floor, mesh seats to let de vasser leave, und electrics are sealed to keep the vasser out! Dis you do not haf.

 ;D


----------



## KevinB

;D

We blew a turbo charger when the snorkle got plugged...
 Nothing like coasting by the Kabul Airport a 20kph... :-[


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/community/mapleleaf/vol_7/vol7_33/733-09.pdf


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/community/mapleleaf/vol_7/vol7_33/733-09.pdf


----------



## KevinB

From what we got told my DLR..
 Guys we told you - you'd get the Bison too  

 You can have four headsets in the C&R (if you really want to).

The MP variant is a C&R with lights...


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Kev,

Like we say, time will tell. I already have our CFR's. 

C&R w/ a light bar = MP, still a variant to the PMO.


----------



## Kampfhamster

Well, the G-Wagon, or Puch called in Switzerland, isn't that bad. 

We rarely have problems, even though our cars are more then 10-15 years old. 
The engine could be a bit more powerfull, but you guys get other variant anyway, so that shouldn't be aproblem


----------



## KevinB

Recceguy - heck if you get them, you get them.

We also got told none of our in Canada G wagons would be armoured variants -- they are all armoured...

Knowing what I know of the bait and switch -- We recently re-rolled all the 031 Recce in to dismounted - so there are a bunch of Coyote's that are going over to the Armoured...

We now need vehicles for our recce - where do you think we will draw them from?
 My guess is Reserve units with C&R Gwagons...


But 7 1/2 years of being in the MO then Reg since 94 has given me the opportunity to see I am not a cynic but a astute observer  ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones

KevinB said:
			
		

> Recceguy - heck if you get them, you get them.
> 
> We also got told none of our in Canada G wagons would be armoured variants -- they are all armoured...
> 
> Knowing what I know of the bait and switch -- We recently re-rolled all the 031 Recce in to dismounted - so there are a bunch of Coyote's that are going over to the Armoured...
> 
> We now need vehicles for our recce - where do you think we will draw them from?
> My guess is Reserve units with C&R Gwagons...
> 
> 
> But 7 1/2 years of being in the MO then Reg since 94 has given me the opportunity to see I am not a cynic but a astute observer ;D



Kev,

I'll have to go back and look at the list, but I think the allocation was made for the 031 Recce Dets without touching the other allocations. So by the list, IIRC, there's enough for everyone, according to their TO&E. That was one purpose of the second buy.

13 years Reg and all the other since '68 in the MO, I prefer to be the cynic. You're not so easily disappointed when they yank the rug out. More like "It figures, let's go have a beer" ;D


----------



## KevinB

Cheers


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Is that the clinking of beers I here?


----------



## KevinB

CFL said:
			
		

> Is that the clinking of beers I here?


Hear???

Maybe  ;D


----------



## 12alfa

KevinB said:
			
		

> From what we got told my DLR..
> Guys we told you - you'd get the Bison too
> 
> You can have four headsets in the C&R (if you really want to).
> 
> That would be incorrect. The EIS for radios is what you get, getting more is like pulling teeth, well pulling teeth is easyer.
> 
> You would have to tell why you would want more headsets to upper, and that is like telling them we still need tanks.
> You get what your issued, nothing more, been that way for quite some time now.


----------



## Hazard_duke

question: Does the weapon mount on the cupola rotate? like change direction to point to either sides or the rear of the vehicle?  Cause it would be almost pointless to have it just point to the front.  If is can, is it automated? (like a tank turret) or what? thanks


----------



## KevinB

Hazard - it can be rotated - by a handcrank.


12A - Gee sorry I hate to offend your supreme knowledge - 
 I guess the headsets we had in Afghan where a mirage...


----------



## Fishbone Jones

;D


----------



## DOOG

Recceguy.
Yeah, you're correct. I have the numbers in front of me. The Inf Recce Pls are getting their own CandR G-Wagens.


----------



## 12alfa

KevinB said:
			
		

> Hazard - it can be rotated - by a handcrank.
> 
> 
> 12A - Gee sorry I hate to offend your supreme knowledge -
> I guess the headsets we had in Afghan where a mirage...


As you know, there is a big differance in a unit that deploy's and a res unit back here in Canada. We get what the eis say's, nothing more.
Right now we have old 125 sets, the TCCS have been taken away with our Cougars, see my point now!

If you have knowledge of how to get extra equipment , please e-mail me , our unit could use more of what we have from the system.

Stay safe over there by the way, if you r still there.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

12Alpha,

The TCCC's were taken in so the harness and  radios could be moved into the MILCOT and G Wagon. We have the same situation with the Iltis right now. 524's and 125's. The stuff from the cougars, iltis etc is already being installed. Our MILCOT goes in this week.

However, on another note. We made the argument to keep CANFORNCODE and veiled speech in the radio procedure, in case we ever had to operate on an unsecure net. We were told we would never require it again and forget about it, because the TCCC's was secure and everyone had TCCC's. Hmmm... and we're using what now?


----------



## 12alfa

rgr;

But still we can't just demand another 10 X TCCS headsets is my point.
TCCS headsets I was told are very $, and our past history of trying to get more have failed.

This whole radio thing is very poor in the way it is being done.
I belive we had more Cougars radio's  than we are puting into the new veh's we are getting ( if we do get them). So my question is where are the rest? Could they not be sent to us to use till we get the new veh's and radio's? The trays could have been installed, and the sets send to us for our use, the radio is not needed for the install, is it?

My point is if they are not needed, they are sitting somewhere not in use, but needed by us. Now if I;m wrong in this , It's my mistake, but the last time I looked the radio's are not needed for the install, just the CPU and keypads and wiring. Am I wrong?


----------



## R22eRKodiak

As far as putting the CC in the 'cupola' (or whatever we can call the turret ring on these vehicles), I am no fan of this option.

I'll get the chance to try this live soon enough, but I am none too crazy of the following (please consider that I have 2 years recce pl experience on Coyotes as I say this).  Controling a veh/section in such a light and unprotected vehicle from an exposed position is not effective because:

1.  I cannot control my driver, my other vehicle, or my platoon while trying to keep my wits about me to keep the vehicle safe from ambush, IED, etc.
2.  I cannot effectively man a platoon and battalion net (or whatever system you happen to be using, in the inf at least, all sec comd should be monitoring both nets)
3.  Visibility from the front passenger seat is actually very good.  I can also tell the driver exaclty where I want to go in the same manner as if I was in a turret from that position as well.
4.  I cannot help and control the platoon/section when I am the first one to be rendered combat ineffective by a grenade tossed at the vehicle (because I am sticking my head out)
5.  I cannot protect the vehicle when I am dead or critically injured by the fragment that grenade blast that I didn't duck in time for because I was reading my map.
6.  I can't write down contacts and fire missions while I am busy shooting at the bad guy from the turret.  If I don't the bad guy will kill me and I will be of no further use to anyone
7.  While I am telling my driver to speed away from a contact, reporting to higher, moving my other callsigns into position to back me up, shooting at the enemy and praying to dear God, my map will probably have a tendency to fly off the truck and thereby be rendered useless.  I am no good lost.
8.  Facing the reality of modern conflict and operations (e.g. Iraqi Freedom, Op Athena, etc.), the battlefield is no longer nicely stretched out and divided into clean, clearly identifiable fronts.  Threats may come from the front, sides, rear, above and below.  If I am busy making a map estimate or writing down FRAGOs or some other critical CC task, I am not paying attention to the little kid who is closing in on the back of the truck and who was told by his wrangler to slap an IED on the back of it (or insert any other attention-requiring scenario here).  

The gunner's job is to ensure the immediate security of the vehicle.  He is entirely engaged in that task and will be burnt out after a day's work by doing that single task alone.  He does not require the added stress of trying to CC the vehicle.  It is not because it was done in the past in relatively simple conflicts that this is what we must do today.

However, I would argue that the recce vehicle that will replace the LUVW C&R _(yes, the G-WAGEN is an interim recce vehicle -- all infanteers can rejoice now!  It is your job to get recommendations out as to what the next thing should be, so that we are not saddled with another fancy dispatch vehicle that is not ideally suited to our job -- as it is, the GWAGEN is nice, awesome even, for bombing around off roads and looking cool.  It is not up to speed with what we need for recce, though) _  should also have a weapon mount for the CC in the front passenger seat (aka navigator seat), much like US SOCCOM HMMMVWs or the aussi long range patrol vehicles, as it is critical for the CC to fight back if required.

As an aside note to another question asked earlier: yes the turret can traverse 360 degrees.  And yes, I wish the thing had a shield on it, too.  It's going to get mighty ''drafty'' up there otherwise.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Many of your points are valid, in the context of "urban ops". However, in traditional(?) ops, fighting the veh, maintaining comms on two nets, controlling your junior, navigating and controlling your driver and gunner are things that the average AFV mounted Armoured CC take as par for the course. We did it in tanks, light track, AVGP and scout cars.  It's what we've been doing for over 50 years. It's not that difficult once you get the hang of it. You don't sit next to your driver in a LAV or Coyote, but you still control him. Until the schools and doctrine change to urban ops, instead of RAPZ recce, we'll have to stay flexible, a characteristic of recce. The situation will dictate. I think, IMHO, you should be ready and able to CC from either pos'n.


----------



## 12alfa

KevinB said:
			
		

> 12A - Gee sorry I hate to offend your supreme knowledge -
> I guess the headsets we had in Afghan where a mirage...



Why the neg. waves?

Please post the link (quote) where I said that had "supreme knowledge ".

And you did not offend, but confirmed what I had in mind already of you. There is time for attitude; this is not the place.
Try to get along, it will help you in getting ahead in this org, as you probably already know this don't you.

More sharp trg'ing maybe?
.


----------



## R22eRKodiak

Recceguy,

I am not arguing that the CC shouldn't be able to take up the gunner's position.  However, I believe that it should not be the primary position for the CC.  I am a very able CC in my own right (hopefully this doesn't sound too self-aggrandizing  ;D), but was more than grateful for any assistance with maintaining local security that my gunner could lend me while I am dealing with a situation requiring the direction of the other cars in my section/platoon/troop.  I have worked recce mainly in the standard scenario, 'rolling over the plains of Europe while seeking out Fantasian/Granovian/Stromian/Insert generic enemy force here.  In every case, I could do the job on my own, but simply not nearly as well, quickly and effectively as when I had a switched on gunner to help me out.  A switched on gunner also doesn't need much direction (although we should always keep tabs on them in case they ever get overenthusiastic), however the gunners I have had so far in recce platoons have all been top notch and could effectively do their job without a single prompt from me (including identifying and engaging the enemy).  While for legal reasons, the order to fire still is best issued from the CC, the reality is that the strategic corporal is going to have an ever increasing impact, including the requirement to open fire when he believes the rules of engagement permit.  Hence the importance of having well trained and switched on pers, but I digress.

Sitting next to the driver has very little impact on my ability to control the driver.  In fact, I control (and do -- we've had the G Wagen since September, SMP not C&R version so we still haven't tried the turret yet)the vehicle in the same way as if I was CC in a Coyote.  The main reasoning for being in the navigator's seat is so that I can be unengaged from the immediate tasks, thereby allowing me to be 'one step back' so that I can effectively command.  This is just as when a section commander (in the infantry) is spending his time shooting at the enemy, rather than telling his troops where and when to shoot and move.  He simply is not doing his job.  His job is to control his entire weapon system, which is the section, and not his rifle.  Although I am referring to a worse case scenario in my previous post, it is during the worst case scenarios that we are able to validate most of our doctrines.

If my gunner were to be injured/incapacitated/killed, then I would have no choice but to take the position over.  This is a good alternative and it is workable.  I am not convinced that it is the optimal solution, though.  I am not bashing what has been done before, having done some of it myself, but I am advocating for what I have found to be the most effective solution to the situation.


----------



## DOOG

Greetings Recce people..
I have been running around with an A1 Echelon (Cougar Sqn) up my butt for a few years now so I don't claim to be up on the latest recce practices. I understand where both 12A and R22eRKodiak are coming from. What I would like to know is what about dismounting? Is it easy for the GIB to dismount and run off to check out a bridge etc? I would think that the front seat would be better for that. I agree that we have been commanding from up top though quite a series of vehicles now and I don't recall anyone having any misgivings about it before.

Drive around town in the passenger seat of a car and see how much vis you get on the things going on around you. Compare this to how much you can see when you are standing up in a cupola. Yes, if a bad guy chucks a bomb on the roof, the CC loses his head. But that's why he gets paid the big bucks. Adds to the incentive for paying a lot of attention to stuff goin on around you.

If I had been asked to design a light recce vehicle of this type (and I can't imagine why I wasn't asked) I would have set it up for a 4 man crew so you could have an observor/dismount and a gunner as well as a CC. That way you have eyes all the way around while the CC does the radio/map/driver control thing.

But then again, what the hell do I know anyway.

Keep on ticky-tacking down the road..


----------



## R22eRKodiak

D00G,

You have underlined a very important difference in how infantry and armoured recce function, which may be one of the sources of difference in opinions here.  Bde/Armoured recce (as I am coming to find out) functions in a different manner than does Bn/Inf recce.  

In the armoured corps, I have found (from my recent and still limited experience with Bde recce) that the CC/GIB relation is different from that of the infantry in many subtle ways.  

Operating from the top of the Coyotes has led many in the infantry to dismount much less often than we used to while working in jeeps.  The CC in the infantry recce also dismounts much more often than do those in armoured recce.  Again simply differences in approaches.  Perhaps we have to agree to disagree on this point.  However, for Bn recce, I would have to argue (and this is the consent of all pers in my pl at the moment) that the CC should be in the passenger seat rather than in the gunner's seat.

As far as having a four man crew in a recce vehicle, I completely agree as well.  In fact, hopefully the vehicle that will be used to replace the 'interim' LUVW C&R will have at the very least the following characteristics:

1.  Mine resistant
2.  Small arms resistant
3.  Capacity for removable roof
4.  Multiple weapons mounts capable of mounting LMG, MMG, HMG, AGL, AT missiles/rockets such as the Javelin or ALAAWS
5.  Easily dismountable
6.  High top speed, acceleration and stealthy profile, so that it can keep up with a LAV III advance
7.  Thermal observation capability usable on the move  (such as the hunter-killer system on M1A2s)
8.  Minimum of two VHF radio mounts with compatibilty to HF and UHF radios
9.  GPS, and all the other gucci-kit compatible.
10.  Crew capacity of 4 with ability to carry Close Target Recce and OP mission essential kit with typical mission endurance of 4-7 days.
11.  Good fields of vision and arcs of fire from the vehicle

Of course, these are just a few of the elements that leap to mind at the moment, and some are ambitious, but they are definite requirements for the next generation recce vehicles.


----------



## HItorMiss

I am going to have to agree with the Sir on this one, the CC should be up front doing his job of leading, if he is busy trying to say observe arcs or fight the vehicle his attention is not on the job of leading the det/section/Pl, which of course should be his first priority. Let the gunner do his job and gun, I'am 100% sure from an Inf stan point that any soldier that is in recce has the thought process and experince to know when and when not to shoot, yes he cannot decided on his own when to pull the trigger but he certainly can say say "Holy crap Mcpl/Sgt/Sir that guy there is shooting at us/going to shoot at us/is a possible threat I'am going to engage. the switched on Cpl/Pte will identify and call out his traget long before the CC will even know whats up, which in my oppion that is what should happen. Let the CC do his thing and make the tactical calls and direct the driver/section/Pl while the gunner does his job of surpressing and eliminating the threats, that our job not the CC's.

My two cents mind you but I am sure that anyone on my recce Pl would agree with me on this.​


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Like R22eRKodiak said, there are fundamental differences in the way you guys do Bn recce and the way we do Bde and Div recce. I'm going to say from the sounds of it, some of the tasks are also different and may require different styles. We're flexible. I've commanded from both the front and rear seat in Iltis, depending on the situation. Also, contrary to popular belief, us Black Hatters do cut the vehicle off our asses and get out on foot on numerous occasions ;D

R22eRKodiak,

To your wish list, I would also add Multi Barrelled Grenade Dischargers. Don't want to be fumbling in the glove box for a single PainsWessex when the big suprise happens


----------



## R22eRKodiak

Recceguy,

Amen to that!  Right now, we're trying to figure out how many grenades we can tape to the front dash, hide in the glovebox and squeeze into the rifle racks of the LUVW.  Although the pucker factor you get from trying to launch a smoke (or frag, i'd imagine) from the inside of an enclosed vehicle definitely makes life interesting, it doesn't do you too much good when the damn thing goes off inside the truck rather than outside! :'(


----------



## DOOG

Hi..
Me again:
I am aware that the way an Inf recce unit and a Cav recce unit do their thing is different. I will make one more point (perhaps more)..
When we did recce from jeeps everyon in the car was sitting at the same level. Therefore when you moved up on a piece of ground the CC would be able to see before the vehicle (or most of it) broke the crest. 
If the CC is in a closed in vehicle and is sitting in the front then the first set of eyeballs over the crest are the GIBs. That is why it is important (in my opinion) for the GIB to be the G i/c.
The fundamental difference in the way we are looking at this seems to be that the Cav method has the crew commander as the first/main/lead/most experienced set of eyes in the truck. The other crewman (the observor) is a younger, less experienced soldier who provides the second set of eyeballs, a radio watch and a guy to run up ahead and check out the bridge etc.
Saying that being up top with an MG to worry about etc would inhibit the CCs ability to provide leadership flies in the face of a good many years of practice. By the way, it wasn't that many years ago that Inf recce and Armoured recce were both using Lynxs. As I recall the CC had to man a .50 cal, read a map, maintain comms, look for the enemy, watch the ground, guide the driver and keep track of where the other callsign was. Now we think that he suddenly can't handle that? Lets put it another way..does an Inf sect comdr carry a map, compass/gps, use a pers weapon and use his eyes? So why would a CC not be able to do the same while mounted.
By the way, R22eRKodiak..the vehicle you are describing could very well be the Italian "Puma" (except for the removable roof thing). It is an armoured 6 wheeled vehicle with room for a bunch of kit and several dismounts. It can be fitted with several different weapons system. I want one.

Striving hard to stimulate discussion, start arguments and drive people to drink.

CAV


----------



## R22eRKodiak

D00G,

I agree that it was exactly this way with the Lynx.  However, in the Lynx we were still trying to fight the Soviet army with a relatively straight forward approach to warfare.  Although our doctrine has not yet adapted to the new realities that we face, I believe that we can afford to be proactive in our thinking not only in the kit we acquire, but also in our TTPs.  Given the increasing likelihood of urban operations and non-linear threat dispositions (e.g. no 'front lines'), I don't believe that we can afford to have the momentary lapses in local consciousness that we occasionally have as commanders as our attention shifts between various tasks.  I know that the books say that we should be 100% aware of our surroundings regardless of what we are doing.  Whoever wrote that was thinking of an ideal world where supermen run around.  I don't care who you are, if you believe that you can do all of these jobs without a loss off effectiveness in one, you are not being honest with yourself (I am not pointing fingers at anyone in particular here, please don't misconstrue these words).  Even the best trained soldiers in the world can do so much at a time, even when they are fresh.  When you've been going nonstop for 96 hours, have missed 3/4 of you meals and have been rained on since the ex/war started, you probably won't be effective at anything, so why try to pile more onto someone when there is a _team_ that can share the burden and be more effective in the long run.  It is simple, logical, and most effective use of the personnel resources at our disposal.  As commanders, if we are not careful, we have the tendency to discount the potential and abilities of our soldiers and wish to do everything ourselves.  This is a great way to function at only 75 or 50% (or less) of your potential capabilities.  That is my take on it, although, others may be convinced that they can do the job better the other (or another) way.  In that case, I'd say the best way to figure it out is to have us try both, potentially competitively, and see who does best.  However, the concensus so far from those of us who have tried it is that the way I propose is the more effective of the two.  Again, infanteers' opinions, so you tankers can all tell us to pound salt and do things your way! ;D

I have to admit that there is a tradeoff when it comes to using terrain masking and proper turret/hull down positions.  This may call upon the gunner to have more responsibility in the control of the vehicle.  In reality, it wouldn't be much different from when they adopt hull down positions with the Coyote.  This maneuver is done under their control, so I see no reason for which they couldn't take the preliminary step that is usually reserved to the CC.  Maybe again, a hybrid solution is to be envisioned.  Perhaps the CC should be the gunner, but the overall commander (det/section/pl) should be in the navigator seat, allowing him to concentrate on the bigger picture.  This would be exactly the same way that 1RCR is controling their LAVs in battle, which has turned out to be very effective.  Again, this calls for more responsibility from more junior soldiers.  This is fine by me, as we have world class soldiers that should be challenged in order to further develop their skills.  In reality, there is nothing magical or complex about any of these tasks, and although there is a great responsibility inherent in the control of a combat vehicle, our soldiers (ptes and cpls), though most are young, are grown men and should be treated as such.  After all, officers, many of them younger than their troopers, can effectively control these same vehicles in combat.  Of course, you cannot place just anyone in these positions, but that is why you know your troopers, and you select the switched on ones to do the job.  It could be a simple, normal progression, allowing you to identify those with leadership potential and giving them more challenges on the way to becoming section 2ICs and commanders.  I am definitely in favour of this type of approach, as it is going to be close to what I'll be doing with my crew.

If we don't work in this way, then the veh comd (in the navigator's seat) will have to dismount more often, which in itself would add to security, while slowing the rate of advance.  Not necessarily a bad tradeoff, given the abiltiy of our enemies to spot us before we see them.

This would also be something that could be rectified by the addition of a hunter killer system as on the M1A2.  Maybe if it was mounted on a small mast, perhaps overlooking the gunner, locked onto the turret ring, so as to never restrict arcs of fire, this could be done remotely by the CC in the navigator's seat.  Worth a try.

I'm afraid I don't know what the Puma is.  Doesn't appear to be in any of my AFV manuals.  The only 2 Pumas I can find are:

1. a Chopper
2. a German WW II wheeled fighting vehicle

If you have a link or pic to one I'd be happy to know.

Right now, we are looking more at vehicles that are like hummers.  Something like the MOWAG Eagle series.  A little smaller, easier on the supply chain, better stealth profile, etc.  Doesn't rule out the 'Puma', or lookalikes, but from what I understand from your description, it sounds similar to the Coyote which we got rid of because it is more of a surveillance vehicle than a recce vehicle.


----------



## 12alfa

Can't let go of that "CAV" thing can ya?

The Puma is not quite what we need, rather I think the Dutch and Germans have what we could use, the Fennek
look here.....
http://www.primeportal.net/apc/fennek.htm

No open top, but this is not really needed, protection is my prime concern.


----------



## George Wallace

Reading this so far has definitely shown the differences in philosophies between Infantry and Armour in reference to Mounted Recce.  Gents, you have no perfect solution.  Fennek is more of an Adm Veh in my opinion, designed mostly to protect the echelons and work in the Rear Area.  I doubt it would make a good Recce Vehicle for the same reasons I don't like to see the CC sit in the front of the GWagon or in any enclosed space for that matter.  Vision is important for him to do his job, but equally important is the ability for him to use his ears, which he can't do inside a cab.  

Another point, especially for Recce guys, is how often do you pick out the enemy by the glare off their Binos or the "Rommels" who like to wear their goggles on top of their helmets instead of covering their eyes?  How does that humongous windshield differ in any way from that?

Recce is a dangerous job.  Life expectancies are measured in seconds, not days or years.  In some cases, less protection will be your best protection.  Too much comfort inside an enclosed vehicle could be a bad thing.

Ferrets, Foxes, Lynxs, Luchs, etc were designed for Recce.    Bare assed jeeps without windshields and roll bars are easy to hide and use and also worked well as Recce vehicles.  I think that you guys are getting too wound up around the axles about "Protection" to safely do the job.

As for gunners in the Coyote doing part of the Crew Commanding, I would be against it in action, but encourage it in Training.  The Comd must maintain full control of his vehicle, but at the same time ensure that his crew are furthering their training and experience.  There will be times that the "Gunner Take Over" will come into play.  There will be times that the Comd will have to dismount, Bridge classifications come to mind, and times that the GIB will do.

I've rambled a bit, but hope that a few pertinent points were covered.

GW


----------



## 12alfa

Fennek.......

OBSERVATION

The reconnaissance vehicle's observation system is the Rheinmetall Defence Electronics (formerly STN Atlas Elektronik) BAA which comprises a thermal imager, a CCD day vision camera and a laser rangefinder and is installed in a sensor head mounted on an extendable mast. The sensor head can be controlled in azimuth and elevation and raised to a height of 3.29m above ground i.e. 1.5m above the vehicle roof. For observation from a concealed position, the sensor head can be tripod-mounted at an exposed location for remote operation up to 40m from the vehicle. 

The sensor head is operated by means of the control unit in the vehicle or via the removed control unit from the concealed position. A hybrid navigation system consisting of an inertial unit and global positioning system (GPS) permits accurate determination of the vehicle position and the north direction. Determination of target coordinates is achieved using the system's laser rangefinder and azimuth and elevation measuring equipment, together with the navigation system. 

The forward position of the driver's seat gives the driver a field of view greater than 180 ° through the windscreen and side windows. The rearview camera mounted at the back of the vehicle and a monitor integrated in the driver's instrument panel allow rapid evasive manoeuvres to be carried out. The driver can use the cable winch to recover his own or another vehicle.

SELF-PROTECTION 

The vehicle has add-on all-round protection against 7.62mm AP rounds. Add-on armour protection can be selected to suit mission requirements. The crew compartment is protected against anti-personnel mines. Nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) warfare protection is integrated in the crew compartment air-conditioning system. The infrared signature is minimised through special exhaust ducting. The powerpack compartment is fitted with a fire extinguishing and warning system, which can be automatically or manually triggered. 

-Not a recce veh...................ok.


----------



## George Wallace

12Alfa said:
			
		

> Fennek.......
> 
> Yadda......Yadda.....Yadda.
> 
> -Not a recce veh...................ok.



Exactly.  A Surveillance Vehicle.

GW


----------



## 12alfa

12Alfa said:
			
		

> Fennek.......
> 
> OBSERVATION
> 
> *The reconnaissance vehicle's observation system * is the Rheinmetall Defence Electronics (formerly STN Atlas Elektronik) BAA which comprises a thermal imager, a CCD day vision camera and a laser rangefinder and is installed in a sensor head mounted on an extendable mast. The sensor head can be controlled in azimuth and elevation and raised to a height of 3.29m above ground i.e. 1.5m above the vehicle roof. *For observation from a concealed position*, the sensor head can be tripod-mounted at an exposed location for remote operation up to 40m from the vehicle.
> 
> The sensor head is operated by means of the control unit in the vehicle or via the removed control unit from the concealed position. A hybrid navigation system consisting of an inertial unit and global positioning system (GPS) permits accurate determination of the vehicle position and the north direction. Determination of target coordinates is achieved using the system's laser rangefinder and azimuth and elevation measuring equipment, together with the navigation system.
> 
> The forward position of the driver's seat gives the driver a field of view greater than 180 ° through the windscreen and side windows. The rearview camera mounted at the back of the vehicle and a monitor integrated in the driver's instrument panel allow rapid evasive manoeuvres to be carried out. The driver can use the cable winch to recover his own or another vehicle.
> 
> SELF-PROTECTION
> 
> The vehicle has add-on all-round protection against 7.62mm AP rounds. Add-on armour protection can be selected to suit mission requirements. The crew compartment is protected against anti-personnel mines. Nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) warfare protection is integrated in the crew compartment air-conditioning system. The infrared signature is minimised through special exhaust ducting. The powerpack compartment is fitted with a fire extinguishing and warning system, which can be automatically or manually triggered.
> 
> -Not a recce veh...................ok.


----------



## George Wallace

Like I said a *SURVEILLANCE* Vehicle.   Just as the Coyote is a Surveillance vehicle; not a Recce vehicle.

GW


----------



## Kirkhill

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

For the info of R22eRKodiak and others. It is a 5.7 tonne APC  used by the Italians in mixed Troops with the Centauro.  4 Pumas and 2 Centauros to the Troop.  3 Troops to the Squadron plus a 4 Centauro Support Troop and 2 more Centauros in the HQ.  3-9 troopers on board depending on role. All around LIGHT armour protection with hatches.

Cheers.


----------



## R22eRKodiak

Yes, you do have to be careful about how manufacturers label their vehicles.  George Wallace is right.  The Coyote is labeled as a recce veh, but in reality is is a surv veh.  That is not to say that the Fennek does not have potential, but one must be careful and critical.

G.W.:  I agree with the Jr Rommel and windshield bit.  I've gotten quite a few contacts spotted because of that very reason.  Now, the GWAGEN is even more of a monstrosity when it comes to reflection.  The entire windshield is perfectly flat and is positively huge.  Not only does it glare on the outside, it glares ridiculously on the inside at night, which makes any form of night navigation very difficult and slower than before.  Yes I hear some of you saying 'SEE THAT'S WHY YOU SHOULD GET YOUR BUTT IN THE GUNNER'S SEAT'.  But I think that much of this can be resolved by other means, which I will not get into here.

G.W., you also mention : 





> Ferrets, Foxes, Lynxs, Luchs, etc were designed for Recce.    Bare assed jeeps without windshields and roll bars are easy to hide and use and also worked well as Recce vehicles.  I think that you guys are getting too wound up around the axles about "Protection" to safely do the job.



You are absolutely right.  However, I think that we cannot ignore protection.  The vehicle should be modular, enabling it to be custom built in a short period of time to suit any environment and protective level required.  This might make an NBC defensive system impossible, but there already are none in the GWAGEN, so I am not particularly concerned.  We've all spent plenty of time in bunny suits and gas masks anyways ;D.  Although the modifications could take some time, I believe that they should be accomplishable with little manpower and maybe a crane like that which can be found on many EME support vehicles.  Picture something working along the same lines as a pickup truck's fiberglass box, except bullet and fragment proof (somewhere beyond level IIIA protection would be required.)  This would allow us to have a permanent main chassis whose core portion would be rugged and mine proof, while having a top part that could either be unarmoured, completely removed for desert-rat type operations (of which I am fond and believe can be very effective in the appropriate circumstances), or could be armoured as required.  The whole thing could be engineered (although I am by no means an engineer, I believe that this should be workable) to be quickly modifiable using the aforementionned techniques.  Using heavy duty nuts and bolts (or whatever -- make them out of the same type and gauge of stuff that we make the 20t clovises on the LAV IIIs -- that should be more than sufficient) the whole thing is affixed to the main chassis which is designed to support the additional weight off the bat, rather than modified to accomodate extra armour afterwards (as in the case of the GWAGEN uparmour kits).

This technique would ensure that the vehicle maintains a hull and suspension that is rigid and strong enough to support the added weight from the design phase onwards.  The engine could then be made sufficiently powerful to ensure that performance is maintained even at top weights.  If we even wanted to make it more of a brute, we could include armour upgrade packages to bolt onto the truck, or ERA, if we were in a frisky mood!

By making it modular, quickly and easily convertable, something I don't recall having seen before, I think we could have a nice tool for recce, for those of us that like to sit in the gunner OR the navigator's seat!


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/vehicles/landrover/

Ask and ye shall receive



> DEMOUNTABLE ARMOURED SYSTEM (DAS)
> This variant allows the installation of armoured panels and glass screens onto a GS vehicle. A standard vehicle can be transformed into an armoured personnel vehicle within 48 hours. The DAS offers protection against high-velocity assault rifles, and can also be combined with anti-personnel mine protection. The Defender DAS is also available in a permanently armoured condition.
> 
> RAPID DEPLOYMENT VEHICLE (RDV)
> The RDV is a modular equipment and weapons platform based on the standard Tdi 90 or Tdi 110 GS. A tough, flexible and mobile platform it is suited to a wide variety of uses including peacekeeping support and humanitarian and refugee protection. The RDV also features a rollover protection frame with ring mount suitable for a range of grenade launchers. An RDV conversion can be fitted to a prepared base vehicle in (cut off here but IIRC I saw somewhere else that the RDV rig could be mounted by the crew in 4 hours).



Same company that did the RDV rig for the Brits Land Rover fitted a similar rig to Ford F350s for the Irish Army special forces.


----------



## 12alfa

The Fennek comes in different mods, some have a roof mounted wpns. Seen vids of this veh, it's quiet, low, and has some protection. better than what we have( coyote), and better than what we r getting (G-wagon).

3 Nations have moved from their past recce afv's to the Fennek, they are quite happy with it and plan to buy more. Can't see any thing that we would want that this AFV does not give us.

True, it's not a open windshield down type of jeep, but I think we have move away from this form of recce.By the posts here some have not.


----------



## HItorMiss

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Reading this so far has definitely shown the differences in philosophies between Infantry and Armour in reference to Mounted Recce.   Gents, you have no perfect solution.   Fennek is more of an Adm Veh in my opinion, designed mostly to protect the echelons and work in the Rear Area.   I doubt it would make a good Recce Vehicle for the same reasons I don't like to see the CC sit in the front of the GWagon or in any enclosed space for that matter.   Vision is important for him to do his job, but equally important is the ability for him to use his ears, which he can't do inside a cab.
> 
> Another point, especially for Recce guys, is how often do you pick out the enemy by the glare off their Binos or the "Rommels" who like to wear their goggles on top of their helmets instead of covering their eyes?   How does that humongous windshield differ in any way from that?
> 
> Recce is a dangerous job.   Life expectancies are measured in seconds, not days or years.   In some cases, less protection will be your best protection.   Too much comfort inside an enclosed vehicle could be a bad thing.
> 
> Ferrets, Foxes, Lynxs, Luchs, etc were designed for Recce.      Bare assed jeeps without windshields and roll bars are easy to hide and use and also worked well as Recce vehicles.   I think that you guys are getting too wound up around the axles about "Protection" to safely do the job.
> 
> As for gunners in the Coyote doing part of the Crew Commanding, I would be against it in action, but encourage it in Training.   The Comd must maintain full control of his vehicle, but at the same time ensure that his crew are furthering their training and experience.   There will be times that the "Gunner Take Over" will come into play.   There will be times that the Comd will have to dismount, Bridge classifications come to mind, and times that the GIB will do.
> 
> I've rambled a bit, but hope that a few pertinent points were covered.
> 
> GW








I think the biggest source of disagreement here is that R22eRKodiak and myself are thinking in the sense of infantry trained Recce soldiers where in we are senior troops who spend 3 months or close to it on a course that covers an incredible amount of info on what to do and is expected from you as a recce patrolmen, we are taught every aspect of every postion in the patrol ( I myself had to convience a LT on my course that my plan to exil his platoon after an attack to an LZ with a high threat of snipers in the area was a sound one,I was imidiately at a disadvantgae because I am in some eyes "just a Cpl") True we are not as good at say high level co-ords but we have done them and with great skill, you say and are correct that many contacts come from ears. but are the CC's ears any better then my own? can I not spot the glare off of said goggles? It seems to me from working with Amoured Recce it's just a slot that troops rotate into(granted it's a coveted one) no course no extra training other then Surv op and the like so yes your right the CC in that case is the most experienced in the Recce role and as such does need to lead his troops much more hands on then  R22eRKodiak does in his vehicle.


Now if Iam wrong about the training of Amoured Recce please tell me Iam not trying to be in anyway high on myself because I have some high speed course, I'm just trying to state where I belive we are coming from here.


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.gcn.com/23_32/dodcomputing/27805-1.html

Maybe this is the answer to the "inside/outside, up or down" question.

By the way, should the infantry recce job be done in an open vehicle like the G-Wagen or a more rugged version of the LSVW like the Pinzgauer SOV while the armour gets something like the Fennek or makes do with the Coyote?


----------

