Author Topic: LAV 6.0  (Read 145620 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline dapaterson

    Halfway to being an idiot-savant.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 553,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,667
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #25 on: August 28, 2015, 13:19:22 »
No.  Doctrinally it is 10.  In reality, they are only established at 8, and there are often holes in this.  5-6 is the norm.

My understanding is that they are doctrinally ten, Reg F establishment within the Bns eight, and for deployment set at eight Reg F + two P Res augmentees.
Putting the *** in acerbic.

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 67,159
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,237
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #26 on: August 28, 2015, 13:47:23 »
I would offer that an RWS with a .50cal HMG or a C-16 GMG would provide sufficient firepower.  I'm a fan for taking turrets off so we get away from over aggressive use of a light armoured vehicle and create more space for what they are really supposed to be doing - moving dismounts to an approriate location to get their job done.  We need an APC, not a light tank.

What about putting an RWS on the vehicles with infantry mounted on them, and have one additional LAVIII with bushmaster per platoon (or maybe company?) there for fire support?
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 148,874
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,731
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #27 on: August 28, 2015, 14:03:52 »
What about putting an RWS on the vehicles with infantry mounted on them, and have one additional LAVIII with bushmaster per platoon (or maybe company?) there for fire support?

The French do something very similar with the VAB.



Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 436,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,552
  • Crewman
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #28 on: August 28, 2015, 15:11:03 »
I would offer that an RWS with a .50cal HMG or a C-16 GMG would provide sufficient firepower.  I'm a fan for taking turrets off so we get away from over aggressive use of a light armoured vehicle and create more space for what they are really supposed to be doing - moving dismounts to an approriate location to get their job done.  We need an APC, not a light tank.

I am proponent of having as little as possible above eye level of the commander, on a vehicle.  We used to be able to effectively ambush vehicles cresting, by simply watching for their antennae and waiting for the vehicle to appear under them.  Now people want to put a big honking RWS up top, with sights.  If antennae were easy to pick out, a big object like the RWS is even more obvious.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 214,345
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,885
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #29 on: August 28, 2015, 16:21:38 »
I would offer that an RWS with a .50cal HMG or a C-16 GMG would provide sufficient firepower.
Why not one RWS with both an MG and a GMG?  We could use the same RWS as was designed for the TAPV and then have a single common gunner course.
More firepower and a reduced individual training footprint.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 219,975
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,087
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #30 on: August 28, 2015, 18:18:57 »
I am proponent of having as little as possible above eye level of the commander, on a vehicle.  We used to be able to effectively ambush vehicles cresting, by simply watching for their antennae and waiting for the vehicle to appear under them.  Now people want to put a big honking RWS up top, with sights.  If antennae were easy to pick out, a big object like the RWS is even more obvious.

George, I know you are also a strong believer in heads-out commanding but what would you say to mounting the sights at the top of the array so that they are the first thing to crest the hill.

It was the difference between the Kiowa with the MMS and the Apache with its Chin mounted sights


"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

Offline cupper

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,015
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,701
  • Nuke 'em 'til they glow, then wait until dark.
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #31 on: August 28, 2015, 18:40:21 »
...where do we put the Medic? The Dog Handler and Dog?  What if you have a FOO/FAC attached?  Where do these augments go? 

Isn't that what the equipment racks are for? >:D
It's hard to win an argument against a smart person, it's damned near impossible against a stupid person.

There is no God, and life is just a myth.

"He who drinks, sleeps. He who sleeps, does not sin. He who does not sin, is holy. Therefore he who drinks, is holy."

Let's Go CAPS!

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 436,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,552
  • Crewman
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #32 on: August 28, 2015, 18:49:17 »
George, I know you are also a strong believer in heads-out commanding but what would you say to mounting the sights at the top of the array so that they are the first thing to crest the hill.

It was the difference between the Kiowa with the MMS and the Apache with its Chin mounted sights




Ummm!  Although that is a sidetrack, the same reasoning applies.  Back in the day, before the advent of the Apache, it was the norm for a Kiowa to be the first thing you wanted to shoot down, as they were the FOO/FAC, and navigator for the flight of Cobras.  The first thing you would see of a Kiowa or attack helicopter would be the rotors above the trees or crest.  The addition of a MMS on top of the rotors made it even easier for one to detect their presence. 

In those days I always wondered what a 105 mm APFSDS would do to such a contact.     :camo:
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 219,842
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,502
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #33 on: August 28, 2015, 19:01:43 »
The "periscope" would be a lot less visible than the rotor and entire fuselage above eyeball level, however.

And the EO/IR system is a lot more effective than stab binos, allowing for greater stand-off.

The heat signature, however...

Offline Nerf herder

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 24,986
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,031
  • The usual suspect.
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #34 on: August 28, 2015, 19:04:00 »
The only way you'll see a Canadian tank on the battle field is when it's ready to kill you. We don't expose our vehicles unless it's nessisary, just like George is talking about. We also shut off our engines to listen for other vehicles approaching.

All we show is eyes above a crest with binds and more often than not, we will see you first, then use sensors to confirm and get the gun on you prior to firing, then adopting a hull down position and firing immediately.

Again, it all depends on the crew and their commander. A good crew with proper SA will get the first shot off regardless of do-dads on a turret or hull. All these things are going to carry over to the new platforms as well. They work.

Infantry don't have the worries of this stuff because, for the most part, they go from waiting area to waiting area waiting for combat team orders while Armour Recce and the tanks are in the lead.

As for 105 APFSDS, try 120. We have the slew rate to track aircraft now.     ;)

Regards
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords.--Ben Franklin

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion."
    -Norman Schwartzkopf

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 436,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,552
  • Crewman
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #35 on: August 28, 2015, 19:17:13 »
Don't get me wrong.  I am in full agreement that the Infantry need wpns that will provide them with extra firepower.  Those weapon systems though, have to be of the right design that they can be easily cammed and employed without exposing a good part of, or the whole, vehicle.  Unfortunately, something like this does not fit the bill in my opinion; unless you are fighting on a baldass relatively flat tabletop:



DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Online Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 279,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,455
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #36 on: August 28, 2015, 19:56:57 »
Whatever you guys do, stick with weapons on the LAV and trying to cram the full section in, that's the vital ground...don't give anyone ideas about using half a section and putting something on LAV-150 TAPV...like a 90mm or anything...  :whistle:

Online Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 279,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,455
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #37 on: August 28, 2015, 20:16:22 »
Don't worry.


HLTA fixes that problem.

MilPoints inbound, after I clean up my coffee...  :rofl:

Offline MedTech32

  • "They Call Me Mr.....wait they don't call anymore :("
  • Member
  • ****
  • 5,385
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 163
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #38 on: August 29, 2015, 09:36:39 »
Med Corps:

That is perhaps what is on paper...however in practice both on domestic OPS AND in Afg HSS deployed 1 Coy Medic and 3 Juniors to the Infantry also in Afg each OMLT/POMLT got one too.  Limiting the Inf Coy to two medics (a dismount and a mounted) and putting both those eggs into one vehicle with a giant hit me here on the sides IS bad doctrine and Piss Poor Planning.  Regardless of what Ottawa thinks there ARE enough pte's/cpl's to fill the need.  As stated it's getting the M/Cpl slot filled.  Also don't loose your medic you might not get a new one.  But there are enough to fill out 2 of our CMBGs  With limited augment from the ResF units (that's their function anyway..different discussion i know) well at least there WAS 2 years ago when I got the 3B kick in the ***.

So it goes to reason to make sure you have the room for augments...even if we remove the dismounted medics from the plt level what about translators and other force multipliers?  Having tunnel vision of just looking to put combat arms into the armored vehicle is being shortsighted.     The LAV works for the most part...it's just that the powers with the check book need to listen to the boots and pay attention to the lessons learned to improve it and actually buy it. 



ANY future vehicle needs to have room OR purchase enough so that there ARE enough vehicles to hand out...(like that's going to happen)...It's a change in Corporate thinking that's needed...no one ever thinks about where to put the doc or translator UNTIL you need a band-aid or have to talk to the local wing nuts.

And that's MY arm chair quarterbacking for the Generals for the day.
In Arduis Fidelis
Militi Succurrimus


**Disclaimer**  Any and all posts are solely the opinion of the poster, and thoughts to the contrary are misguided.** Disclaimer**

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 202,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,905
  • Freespeecher
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #39 on: September 02, 2015, 22:25:22 »
Bringing us back full circle, since we don't really seem to have any doctrine, we can't define what exactly we want our vehicle fleet to do for us.

Carry a dismounted section plus a few "enablers/floppers"? Bring back the M-113, a roomy, reliable battle taxi with plenty of room for "stuff". Just don't expect to fight it out with others on a one to one basis.

Zoom around to bring your dismounted section places before your enemies can figure out what you are doing and react, plus carry extra people and stuff? A Stryker would seem to fit the bill, being a souped up M-113 on wheels.

Go into a fight supporting your dismounted Panzergrenadiers? Now you need an IFV carrying a cannon and armour protection. The main principle is it should have similar mobility to the tank and other AFV's ion the combat team. How much protection is needed should be a carefully considered trade off, but a CV90 class vehicle would seem to be rather light for the role (even if teamed up with CV90120's and other CV90 based AFV's), so realistically we are looking at PUMA, ACHZARIT or NAMER class vehicles, with all the logistical headache that would entail.

The initial LAV III was a fairly decent compromise between the wheeled M-113 and having more firepower, but the LAV 6.0 is pushing the limits of a wheeled platform pretty hard, and the mobility and protection will never match that of a true IFV. Even replacing a lot of parts with titanium and ceramics (lots of advances on material science, including how to make titanium parts inexpensively) and replacing the turret with a RWS is never going to make the LAV 6.0 an IFV, regardless of what anyone says.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 133,516
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,534
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #40 on: September 02, 2015, 23:17:16 »
Med Corps:

That is perhaps what is on paper...however in practice both on domestic OPS AND in Afg HSS deployed 1 Coy Medic and 3 Juniors to the Infantry also in Afg each OMLT/POMLT got one too.  Limiting the Inf Coy to two medics (a dismount and a mounted) and putting both those eggs into one vehicle with a giant hit me here on the sides IS bad doctrine and Piss Poor Planning.  Regardless of what Ottawa thinks there ARE enough pte's/cpl's to fill the need.  As stated it's getting the M/Cpl slot filled.  Also don't loose your medic you might not get a new one.  But there are enough to fill out 2 of our CMBGs  With limited augment from the ResF units (that's their function anyway..different discussion i know) well at least there WAS 2 years ago when I got the 3B kick in the ***.

So it goes to reason to make sure you have the room for augments...even if we remove the dismounted medics from the plt level what about translators and other force multipliers?  Having tunnel vision of just looking to put combat arms into the armored vehicle is being shortsighted.     The LAV works for the most part...it's just that the powers with the check book need to listen to the boots and pay attention to the lessons learned to improve it and actually buy it. 



ANY future vehicle needs to have room OR purchase enough so that there ARE enough vehicles to hand out...(like that's going to happen)...It's a change in Corporate thinking that's needed...no one ever thinks about where to put the doc or translator UNTIL you need a band-aid or have to talk to the local wing nuts.

And that's MY arm chair quarterbacking for the Generals for the day.

I can't help but think that you seem focussed on asymmetrical warfare and your experience in Afghanistan. Don't lose sight that our first and foremost focus must be the ability to destroy another well-equipped, conventional force. As we don't have the budget to have a fleet of vehicles for conventional warfare and vehicles for non-conventional warfare, we need to have the former and make do with that kit through our own ingenuity and determination when the latter occurs.

In a conventional setting, the FOO / FAC has his own LAV variant that he rolls in. I do not want medics in my platoon vehicles, that's the best spot for them to get killed. I don't want dog handlers and dogs. I don't want interpreters.

I want combat troops and as many weapons / ammo / etc as we can take on the attack. The medics are safest in the A ech until the fight is won and the area is secured, at which point the troops are going to start moving casualties to collection points. That takes enough time that the medics would be pushed up to the collection point and waiting to receive them for triage and treatment.

Or at least, that's what the book says if I'm tracking it right, and it's a good book.
Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 436,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,552
  • Crewman
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #41 on: September 03, 2015, 08:08:10 »
I can't help but think that you seem focussed on asymmetrical warfare and your experience in Afghanistan. Don't lose sight that our first and foremost focus must be the ability to destroy another well-equipped, conventional force. As we don't have the budget to have a fleet of vehicles for conventional warfare and vehicles for non-conventional warfare, we need to have the former and make do with that kit through our own ingenuity and determination when the latter occurs.

In a conventional setting, the FOO / FAC has his own LAV variant that he rolls in. I do not want medics in my platoon vehicles, that's the best spot for them to get killed. I don't want dog handlers and dogs. I don't want interpreters.

I want combat troops and as many weapons / ammo / etc as we can take on the attack. The medics are safest in the A ech until the fight is won and the area is secured, at which point the troops are going to start moving casualties to collection points. That takes enough time that the medics would be pushed up to the collection point and waiting to receive them for triage and treatment.

Or at least, that's what the book says if I'm tracking it right, and it's a good book.

 :goodpost:

Fairly much as it has been practiced over the years, covering a good majority of foreseeable COA's other that asymmetric.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 184,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,702
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #42 on: September 03, 2015, 10:08:57 »
The French having been focusing their light AFV's to fight in their old colonial backyard, and they work well there. I am not sure how they fared in Afghanistan and what they took beyond VAB's.

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 33,125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,213
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #43 on: September 03, 2015, 12:24:57 »
:goodpost:

Fairly much as it has been practiced over the years, covering a good majority of foreseeable COA's other that asymmetric.

If that's the case then you need the 25mm to stay where it is.  It's "supposed" to handle enemy APC's and light IFV. 

As for LAV size, the whole section fits into a LAV, just 3 of them are required to operate/fight the vehicle.  Unless I'm reading the book wrong the vehicleis part of the section.  Its the number of dismounts that everyone is discussing.  So the question is do you want more dismounts?  If so is there a different vehicle that should be used?  Or perhaps the vehicles should be crewed by armoured soldiers instead.

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 148,874
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,731
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #44 on: September 03, 2015, 13:19:30 »
The French having been focusing their light AFV's to fight in their old colonial backyard, and they work well there. I am not sure how they fared in Afghanistan and what they took beyond VAB's.

They worked very well by all accounts.  I've got an article I'll link here when I get home.  The AMX-10 and ERC-90 Sagaie worked very well as they provided a lot of firepower while also being small enough to go places other larger AFVs couldn't get to.

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 67,159
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,237
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #45 on: September 03, 2015, 14:30:46 »
If that's the case then you need the 25mm to stay where it is.  It's "supposed" to handle enemy APC's and light IFV. 

As for LAV size, the whole section fits into a LAV, just 3 of them are required to operate/fight the vehicle.  Unless I'm reading the book wrong the vehicleis part of the section.  Its the number of dismounts that everyone is discussing.  So the question is do you want more dismounts?  If so is there a different vehicle that should be used?  Or perhaps the vehicles should be crewed by armoured soldiers instead.

This is what I was saying earlier on. Get rid of the 25mm and put in additional seats and an RWS. Add an additional LAV to the platoon with the 25mm to be used for fire support. It could be crewed my specialized infanteers, kind of like how we train NCIOPs to be SACs.

**These suggestions are made with the explicit understanding that I'm in the Navy, have practically zero army experience (basic only, really), and ergo really have no f***ing clue what I'm talking about  ;D
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 54,420
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,438
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #46 on: September 03, 2015, 15:45:37 »
This is what I was saying earlier on. Get rid of the 25mm and put in additional seats and an RWS. Add an additional LAV to the platoon with the 25mm to be used for fire support. It could be crewed my specialized infanteers, kind of like how we train NCIOPs to be SACs.

**These suggestions are made with the explicit understanding that I'm in the Navy, have practically zero army experience (basic only, really), and ergo really have no f***ing clue what I'm talking about  ;D

So basically you want an updated Bison, and one LAV 6 as part of a heavy weapons det?
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 214,345
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,885
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #47 on: September 03, 2015, 15:46:45 »
Stryker 6.0 and LAV 6.0 in the same organization.

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 67,159
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,237
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #48 on: September 03, 2015, 15:56:38 »
So basically you want an updated Bison, and one LAV 6 as part of a heavy weapons det?

Sounds about right, but now that I think about it, this reminds me a lot of the problems experienced in early WWII when armoured units were spread between infantry units instead of being concentrated in armoured units. So I'm not sure any more. Maybe have all the platoons in a company mounted in APCs with RWS and have a heavy weapns platoon (Squadron?) of nothing but IFVs or even Leopards in direct support?
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 436,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,552
  • Crewman
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #49 on: September 03, 2015, 16:17:47 »
......... Maybe have all the platoons in a company mounted in APCs with RWS and have a heavy weapons platoon (Squadron?) of nothing but IFVs or even Leopards in direct support?

That is what is called a "Combat Team".
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.