Author Topic: Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle - RG-31, LAV Coyote, and (partial) G-Wagon Replacement  (Read 389783 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Tango2Bravo

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 49,630
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,790
  • All your base are belong to us.
For real.  I have even seen a TAPV based firebase for a BG deliberate attack.

We'd need to know more about the situation - was it a 3rd Battalion dismounted attack against a dismounted but dug-in enemy? Then a TAPV firebase with C16s could actually be a fairly good idea. I recall being on exchange with the USMC and the Heavy Guns Platoon was usually a firebase with HMMVW-mounted Mk19s and 50 cals.

Heck, if I was a tank squadron Battle Captain commanding a Firebase for a BG attack I would actually find some value from attached TAPVs with C16s to provide suppression while my tanks deal with hard targets.

Now, trying to fight other vehicles with it is an entirely different story!



Well-trained, older Panzer crews are the decisive factor for success...It is preferable to start off with fewer Panzers than to set out with young crews who lack combat experience.

 - Verbal report of Gen Balck 1943

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 207,020
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,738
It was a mechanized BG and the enemy position was fighting with Stryker TOW and Stryker MGS.

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 138,910
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,163
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
It was a mechanized BG and the enemy position was fighting with Stryker TOW and Stryker MGS.

Seriously? That is an excellent way to lose a lot of TAPVs, quickly.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 227,205
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,949
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Seriously? That is an excellent way to lose a lot of TAPVs, quickly.

Maybe that's the whole point? :)
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Tango2Bravo

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 49,630
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,790
  • All your base are belong to us.
It was a mechanized BG and the enemy position was fighting with Stryker TOW and Stryker MGS.

Was anything else in the firebase? Were there Leopards in the BG attack somewhere?

I'm grasping at straws now...

Still, TAPV is not a terrible way to get a C16 around. It can contribute to the fight. Just not every fight...
Well-trained, older Panzer crews are the decisive factor for success...It is preferable to start off with fewer Panzers than to set out with young crews who lack combat experience.

 - Verbal report of Gen Balck 1943

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 227,205
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,949
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Was anything else in the firebase? Were there Leopards in the BG attack somewhere?

I'm grasping at straws now...

Still, TAPV is not a terrible way to get a C16 around. It can contribute to the fight. Just not every fight...

Good point. It would have been useful at Isandlwana  :nod:
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 138,910
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,163
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Was anything else in the firebase? Were there Leopards in the BG attack somewhere?

I'm grasping at straws now...

Still, TAPV is not a terrible way to get a C16 around. It can contribute to the fight. Just not every fight...

I completely agree. C16 can be a very effective suppression weapon against dismounted infantry. Against dug in armour?

Offline GK .Dundas

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 17,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 444
Let's be brutally honest for a moment.
 The TAPV was not purchased to do Recce it was bought because it's the most likely vehicle to survive the most massive IED blast because the gutless wonders who make up our political leadership are **** scared  of ANY casualties and an equally gutless number of senior officers who seemed to be preoccupied with their future employment prospects and their pensions.
Now if we'd been looking for a wheeled armored vehicle to fulfill the recce/ light cavalry role it would probably look like a Fennek or a VBL but not a TAPV.
Mind you as someone mentioned earlier it does make a marvelous C16 carrier ...........Let that sink in for a moment. Does that mean we have just purchased several hundred Artillery Tractors for... a 40 mm......grenade launcher?

"Norman. You know my policy on arming morons.If you arm one you have arm them all. Otherwise it 's just not sporting!"

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 201,325
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,457
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Let's be brutally honest for a moment.
 The TAPV was not purchased to do Recce it was bought because it's the most likely vehicle to survive the most massive IED blast because the gutless wonders who make up our political leadership are **** scared  of ANY casualties and an equally gutless number of senior officers who seemed to be preoccupied with their future employment prospects and their pensions.
Now if we'd been looking for a wheeled armored vehicle to fulfill the recce/ light cavalry role it would probably look like a Fennek or a VBL but not a TAPV.
Mind you as someone mentioned earlier it does make a marvelous C16 carrier ...........Let that sink in for a moment. Does that mean we have just purchased several hundred Artillery Tractors for... a 40 mm......grenade launcher?

There is a family resemblance....





"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 201,325
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,457
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!


Curious layout....

Is it just me or does that seem to be the most inefficient use of space possible?

What happens if the VC took over the Gunner's duties?   Could the space in the rear be reconfigured?
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 19,640
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 871
Let's be brutally honest for a moment.
 The TAPV was not purchased to do Recce it was bought because it's the most likely vehicle to survive the most massive IED blast because the gutless wonders who make up our political leadership are **** scared  of ANY casualties and an equally gutless number of senior officers who seemed to be preoccupied with their future employment prospects and their pensions.

Casualties are our greatest strategic liability on any mission.  Our soldiers inside that vehicle are a larger investment in time and money then the vehicle itself.  I have no problems with the prioritization of armoured protection.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2018, 16:30:55 by Underway »

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 273,846
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,416
Casualties are our greatest strategic liability on any mission.  Our soldiers inside that vehicle are a larger investment in time and money then the vehicle itself.  I have no problems with the prioritization of armoured protection.

Problem is the lives that may get saved against IEDs may be lost when it's employed out of it's capabilities. Like a firebase. 

TAPV will have a max effective range of 2000meters.  A BMP2-M with Kornets has a 5500 meter range (or 8000m/10'000m range with the EM) and those missiles can take out our tanks.
If LAV3s are working in the firebase with TAPVs they'll loose at least 1000 meters of range.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Tango2Bravo

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 49,630
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,790
  • All your base are belong to us.
Problem is the lives that may get saved against IEDs may be lost when it's employed out of it's capabilities. Like a firebase. 

TAPV will have a max effective range of 2000meters.  A BMP2-M with Kornets has a 5500 meter range (or 8000m/10'000m range with the EM) and those missiles can take out our tanks.
If LAV3s are working in the firebase with TAPVs they'll loose at least 1000 meters of range.

While I agree that the TAPV can get into trouble if employed outside its capabilities, I disagree that a firebase task is necessarily out of those capabilities. Nothing is going to outrange the threat long-range missiles, so I am not sure what the point you are making is. In any case, the TAPV in a firebase is not there to hunt BMP2s or knock out tanks. There are other systems to do that. 

I would also have serious questions about the utility of a LAV3 in a firebase 3000 from the objective they are supposed to be suppressing.

Picture yourself as the CO of an infantry battalion conducting a dismounted attack against an enemy force of company size that does not have AFVs either. Are you going to refuse the use of eight or so TAPVs with C16s in a firebase at 1500m? Even a mechanized attack could benefit from the firepower of those C16s, but of course the TAPVs should not be there alone. If we are launching the assault then the tanks that became the firebase should have already killed the visible enemy armour. The tanks being joined by TAPVs with C16s to help provide the suppression effect during the assault would not be a bad thing.   


I am not saying that the TAPV is a front-line AFV. I am saying that we should be careful about dismissing things that we hear about devoid of context.


Well-trained, older Panzer crews are the decisive factor for success...It is preferable to start off with fewer Panzers than to set out with young crews who lack combat experience.

 - Verbal report of Gen Balck 1943

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 273,846
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,416
I think we're the only country that still imagines enemy light infantry digging positions in the open without AFV support.

I mentioned the Kornet because we're all about fighting Russians people with eastern bloc hardware and I'm assuming (perhaps incorrectly) a BG (as per the point that started this convo) is going to square off against enough guys with some serious kit and not just some light infantry sans support.

Would I say no to TAPVs? No idea. I'd guess ammo for them would be a problem in the firebase? There's not a terrible amount of room inside them.
We could always drop a TOW2 system on it and double the range but ammo storage would be an even bigger issue.
I'm not very impressed with the AGLS. I think someone decided we WILL use 40mm AGLS and now we're making it fit.
Edit: but I'm open to being totally wrong with my opinion.
I don't want to sound like I'm dismissing your experience or anything, it's a lot more than mine in this area of course.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2018, 09:16:05 by Jarnhamar »
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 19,640
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 871
This might be off topic slightly, but is it just me or is armoured recce different now from our current doctrine and we just haven't acknowledge it.  With modern IR airborne sensors on cheap UAV's, and surveillance packages that can look 10's of km away isn't the idea of a light armoured vehicle that sneaks and hides kinda dead in many ways?  US uses Bradleys for armoured recce, UK uses the new Ajax, Australia is buying the Boxer...  their doctrine is different granted.

Now I'm not arguing pros and cons of TAPV in the recce game, but the increase in armour from traditional light assets seems to follow the general trend in recce vehicles over the "English speaking" world at the very least.  Is our doctrine totally out of touch?  Is it kept alive because we can't be bothered to spend money on proper armoured recce equipment? Are the people here arguing about old ways of doing things that have less and less value?

Offline GK .Dundas

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 17,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 444
This might be off topic slightly, but is it just me or is armoured recce different now from our current doctrine and we just haven't acknowledge it.  With modern IR airborne sensors on cheap UAV's, and surveillance packages that can look 10's of km away isn't the idea of a light armoured vehicle that sneaks and hides kinda dead in many ways?  US uses Bradleys for armoured recce, UK uses the new Ajax, Australia is buying the Boxer...  their doctrine is different granted.

Now I'm not arguing pros and cons of TAPV in the recce game, but the increase in armour from traditional light assets seems to follow the general trend in recce vehicles over the "English speaking" world at the very least.  Is our doctrine totally out of touch?  Is it kept alive because we can't be bothered to spend money on proper armoured recce equipment? Are the people here arguing about old ways of doing things that have less and less value?
 I have to admit to a certain amount of confusion, myself. We really don't seem to purchase vehicles to fit with whatever doctrine we're using and then kind of force fit the vehicle into the doctrine. We certainly did with the Coyote and the TAPV seems similar.
"Norman. You know my policy on arming morons.If you arm one you have arm them all. Otherwise it 's just not sporting!"

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 227,205
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,949
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Casualties are our greatest strategic liability on any mission outside of a general war scenario that does not require a strategically decisive engagement with a peer, near peer, foe to be successful

FTFY :)
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Online Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 30,700
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,804
Would TAPV roll over in similar situation? https://youtu.be/U3D_C-s5iQQ

Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 91,700
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,993
Nice target.
Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 130,670
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,075
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Saw a picture of one of our TAPV's on fire by the roadside?

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -5240.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 268,187
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,337
    • Army.ca
This might be off topic slightly, but is it just me or is armoured recce different now from our current doctrine and we just haven't acknowledge it.  With modern IR airborne sensors on cheap UAV's, and surveillance packages that can look 10's of km away isn't the idea of a light armoured vehicle that sneaks and hides kinda dead in many ways?  US uses Bradleys for armoured recce, UK uses the new Ajax, Australia is buying the Boxer...  their doctrine is different granted.

Now I'm not arguing pros and cons of TAPV in the recce game, but the increase in armour from traditional light assets seems to follow the general trend in recce vehicles over the "English speaking" world at the very least.  Is our doctrine totally out of touch?  Is it kept alive because we can't be bothered to spend money on proper armoured recce equipment? Are the people here arguing about old ways of doing things that have less and less value?
 I have to admit to a certain amount of confusion, myself. We really don't seem to purchase vehicles to fit with whatever doctrine we're using and then kind of force fit the vehicle into the doctrine. We certainly did with the Coyote and the TAPV seems similar.


Up til 2013 there was no RECCE doctrine. I don't know what's happened since then. We made it up as we went along depending on the task and available equipment. The Troop Leaders Guide to the Galaxy has been in 'draft' form since the 90's and I don't think It's been officially replaced yet, at least, I've not heard anything if it was. The last official version was the 70's one with the T-62 and PT-76 removed as our threats. There's been lots of draft and unofficial copies of stuff floating around. One of the first things any commanders course had to do was rewrite the  SOPs so that everyone, from different units, is on the same page. Some stuff stays the same, like a blind corner drill. Some other things change on a constant basis, like surveillance. There's a big difference in doing an OP screen from a hole, tied by sigs wire to your small sneak and peek vehicle or an OP screen of big, dirty noisy Coyotes. It almost seems like everything we do is by rote and we just add and subtract things based on resources and situations. If anything, it keeps everyone confused to what we do and how we do it.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2018, 12:23:10 by Fishbone Jones »
Diversity includes adverse opinions, or it is not diversity.
Inclusive includes adverse opinions, or is not inclusive.

Online Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 166,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,129
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Up til 2013 there was no RECCE doctrine. I don't know what's happened since then.

B-GL-394-001 Ground Manoeuvre Reconnaissance is the Army's doctrine for manoeuvre reconnaissance (infantry and armoured recce).  It was written in 2008 and just recently updated in 2015.  It describes Armoured Reconnaissance organizations, tasks, and TTPs.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -5240.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 268,187
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,337
    • Army.ca
B-GL-394-001 Ground Manoeuvre Reconnaissance is the Army's doctrine for manoeuvre reconnaissance (infantry and armoured recce).  It was written in 2008 and just recently updated in 2015.  It describes Armoured Reconnaissance organizations, tasks, and TTPs.

Thanks. We never saw it in 2008. And we never saw a copy by the time I retired. Last course I was on in 2010-11 didn't use it. That was a SSM course. Did they have a light recce role defined yet? THE RECONNAISSANCE SQUADRON IN BATTLE B-GL-305-002/FT-001 (CFP 305 (2)) is the reference I was speaking to. It just never seemed to get updated and that's the one that was the everyday reference for us. Perhaps I'm speaking of something different? If they finally got around to replacing it, that's a good thing. There was a book I recall, it was a weird bifold book. I don't recall exactly what it was about, but I do recall that we didn't use it.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2018, 18:19:30 by Fishbone Jones »
Diversity includes adverse opinions, or it is not diversity.
Inclusive includes adverse opinions, or is not inclusive.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 212,725
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,528
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
This might be off topic slightly, but is it just me or is armoured recce different now from our current doctrine and we just haven't acknowledge it.  With modern IR airborne sensors on cheap UAV's, and surveillance packages that can look 10's of km away isn't the idea of a light armoured vehicle that sneaks and hides kinda dead in many ways? 

Sorry for a late reply, I just saw this reading thru the thread this morning.

Speaking from my experience on ops and ex's, yes the idea of 'sneak and peek' Armd Recce is extremely hard to do successfully if your OPFOR has airborne EO/IR, and even harder if they have imaging and GMTI RADAR, etc.  Darkness is my friend, not theirs on the ground.  RADAR doesn't much care if it is undercast or not.  Need to run your AFV in your patrol base to charge your batteries?  Nice, IR loves that sort of stuff.

How long those airborne assets will last over a modern battlefield, is a different discussion.

« Last Edit: November 17, 2018, 18:39:35 by Eye In The Sky »
Everything happens for a reason.

Sometimes the reason is you're stupid and make bad decisions.

Online Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 166,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,129
  • Honey Badger FTW!
How long those airborne assets will last over a modern battlefield, is a different discussion.

Yes, counter UAV/Sensor Aircraft is a hot topic, since it is so prominent in Western efforts to whack third world armies/insurgents.  For all the talk about stealth fighters, everyone talks about beating their stealth by taking out the unstealthy tankers and AWACS planes....
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr