Author Topic: LAV 6.0  (Read 138120 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 177,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,554
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #350 on: August 03, 2020, 16:07:06 »
It's also highly dependent on terrain and season, winter, fall, spring of Eastern Europe your LAV are likely to be mired in mud the moment they leave the hard surfaces. In a place like Iraq, you have a lot more flexibility. The LAV 6.0 would be a beast in Mali, but even then limited by bridges and recovery options. 

Offline Ostrozac

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 36,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 782
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #351 on: August 03, 2020, 22:11:56 »
It's also highly dependent on terrain and season, winter, fall, spring of Eastern Europe your LAV are likely to be mired in mud the moment they leave the hard surfaces. In a place like Iraq, you have a lot more flexibility. The LAV 6.0 would be a beast in Mali, but even then limited by bridges and recovery options.

On the subject of bridges, one thing that Mali has is a minimal number of bridges. This is driven by a limited number of rivers, and is a characteristic that North and West Africa share with the Arabian Peninsula and Afghanistan. It’s almost like we picked equipment that was optimal for fighting a counterinsurgency in an arid environment — and are now trying to shoehorn that into the ability to fight the Russians. Those are two different problem sets and with our equipment we are setting ourselves up to play hockey with a baseball bat.

Online MJP

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 191,245
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,775
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #352 on: August 03, 2020, 23:14:49 »
On the subject of bridges, one thing that Mali has is a minimal number of bridges. This is driven by a limited number of rivers, and is a characteristic that North and West Africa share with the Arabian Peninsula and Afghanistan. It’s almost like we picked equipment that was optimal for fighting a counterinsurgency in an arid environment — and are now trying to shoehorn that into the ability to fight the Russians. Those are two different problem sets and with our equipment we are setting ourselves up to play hockey with a baseball bat.

We went with a LAV based fleet before going to fight a counter insurgency so I don't think that was a real consideration for the LAV 6 as the next choice rather the commonality/familiarity of the fleet (although that was a bit suspect) played a larger role.
Hope is not a valid COA

Offline Ostrozac

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 36,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 782
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #353 on: August 03, 2020, 23:55:34 »
We went with a LAV based fleet before going to fight a counter insurgency so I don't think that was a real consideration for the LAV 6 as the next choice rather the commonality/familiarity of the fleet (although that was a bit suspect) played a larger role.

That's a good point. LAV-3 was a post-Cold War project, though, and the decision to replace M113 and Grizzly with a wheeled APC was made after the decision to close down 4CMBG. Was it originally intended to be a primarily peacekeeping/low intensity vehicle, rather than a frontline NATO IFV? I'd probably have to dig into the old articles about the vehicle.

I will note that we made the decision to go with an all-wheeled infantry carrier fleet before the US came out with their Stryker doctrine -- which was pretty clearly designed, in its original concept, to give more mobility and firepower to their light forces rather than being a frontline NATO/Korea heavy force. The US had a clear doctrine, but we made our decision before they came out with it, so that wouldn't  have been a factor.

Offline CBH99

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 49,280
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,267
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #354 on: August 04, 2020, 00:09:15 »
If I remember correctly, the LAV 3 was intended to be purchased around the 1200 vehicle mark to replace the M113 and Grizzly.
When the price tag came in too high, we ended up purchasing 650 LAV 3 and upgraded the M113 to the TLAV standard.

The purchase of this vehicle was meant for low intensity & medium intensity conflict, which is what we had been dealing with for decades at the time, re: Bosnia, Croatia/Serbia, etc etc.  The UN 'glory days'.

The Tacvest was designed for the same type of theater.  It was meant as an upgrade to the webbing with the old olive drab uniforms, and part of the new CADPAT uniform & kit.  It was designed with low to medium intensity peacekeeping & peace support operations in mind.


A lot of this equipment started to roll out in the late 90's, and I believe the LAV made it's debut during a peacekeeping deployment to Ethiopia & Eritrea.  At the time, it was a HUGE generational leap ahead of what anybody else was fielding for those kinds of operations.  The Coyote still had an extremely impressive surveillance system up until a few years ago too, and has since been updated accordingly. 

Then 9/11 happened, and Afghanistan happened.  A theater we hadn't remotely prepared for, as it was a complete divergence of what we had been doing for decades.  We had the Iltis, green camo, C3 and LG1 Mk 2... the best vehicle we had at the time, and most other NATO countries wish they had, was the LAV. 

Obviously there was a pretty generous shopping spree once Afghanistan kicked off, and the armed forces as a whole filled out with a lot more modern and decent kit.



But yes, our purchase of the LAV 3 did predate the American decision to go with the Stryker.  Our intended use, and their intended use also, was different than what the vehicle eventually evolved into doing. 

(I could be wrong on the above.  I realize yesterday when talking with a colleague, I joined 20 years ago...wtf happened?  Where did that time go?)   :o :2c:
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some Boondock Saints kicking around?