• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Armoured Recce Vehicle

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Inactive
Reaction score
33
Points
560
Although this is the subject of lots of arguments in a few other threads, I think it is worth discussing the technical aspects in a separate thread.

The main idea is a desire to extend the capabilities of the Armoured Recce (rather than downgrade them by driving around in an SUV). The tactical and operational arguments are going on here:

Our 'maybe' new recce vehicle http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/35535.0.html, and  "Trading Saber for Stealth" or "Are We a One Trick Pony?" http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/35526.0.html

The question is, what features would be desirable in an Armoured Recce Vehicle? This is a bit of a fishing expedition, since I won't specify anything other than the platform must be able to operate in all points of a "Full Spectrum Operation", so the recce crew can do anything from operating against the PLA or the "Crips" on the Jane-Finch corridor, to handing out IMPs on a humanitarian operation with a reasonable degree of success. This should rule out uber specialized vehicles like the M-1 TUSK as well as SUVs, but the field is wide open otherwise.

I would suggest starting with the RFP before proposing an existing or modified platform to fill the bill.
 
So what is required in an Armoured reconnaissance platform?

Some points have already been mentioned in other topics but these are the top ten priorities IMO

1.  Excellent battlefield mobility (Amphibious, Tracked, Small turning radius)
2.  Armoured protection from shrapnel and small arms up to and including .50cal
3.  A moderately blast resistant hull (AVGP equivalency)
4.  Extended operating range (600 to 900 km)
5.  Unresupplied operation for up to 72 hours
6.  3 man crew
7.  Thermal sights
8.  NBC detection system
9.  A Tac-Nav system
10. A weapons system capable of destroying soft skin or lightly armoured Vehicles

Things that are not required

1.  Surveillance system - presumably this vehicle would work in conjunction with the Coyote and UAV and all the rest of the gucci kit of the ISTAR Btn
2.  Dismounts - Should the terrain require close protection, or if you are going on a bug hunt, then that is what we have grunts for. Combined arms... more than just another catchy phrase.
3.  Big windows and comfy seats - My hatred of the LUV-W recce abortion is verging on the pathological these days, it seems that some people are willing to sacrifice the true essence of armoured recce to allow for a one mission fits all vehicle, focusing on our governments own retoric about the CF peacekeeper image. What may work in a CMIC detatchment, rear eschelon or for MP's cruising the relatively safe streets of Kabul will only get people dead in a shooting war.
4.  Anti Armour capability - I was always taught that the primary weapon of Armoured Recce was the Artillery battery, give a guy an AT weapon and more than likely he will be tempted to use it when he shouldn't. The only indication the enemy should have that he is under observation is the sinister whistle of DPICM incomming.

*** A point to note about dismounts***
This "requirement" is only an issue worthy of mentioning here because we no longer have the Assault Troop
The Assault troop was designed as the "Ground Support Element of the Recce Squadron". They were an on call source of dismounts, intimately knowledgeable in Armoured Recce TTP's, unit SOP's and able to conduct minor engineer tasks. I see no utility in attaching both engineers and infanteers to a Recce Sqn to fill a role that was seamlessly served by the Assault Troop. Double the Logistical tail for half the utility from each of those attachments... anyone got a good reason why to do this?

 
Reccesoldier, your description sounds to me like a Panhard VBL. 8)
 
My background is as a sapper - long ago so I will excuse myself - however my uncles were armoured (Clifford Dunster and Donny Nicholson - who passed on 2 years ago). In following the arguments on these recce vehicles - the shortcomings in what is current, all seem to be  in this Coyote and use of the Coyote - too big etc.. As a surveillance vehicle shouldn't a LAV be a better choice (more room) - and does a recce vehicle or surveillance vehicle need a 25mm gun? Wouldn't there be more room without it? The Coyote if optimised for recce, should have room for a dismount team if this 25 mm turret is removed and replaced with say, a 40 mm grenade launcher/machine gun combination - with say possibly a launcher for a medium range or long-range anti-tank missile although shoulderfired launchers could be part of the kit instead. Particular care could also be paid to engine silencing too. No turret seems to me to mean less height - better hideability, more room for kit and necessary bodies. After-all in WW2 what was the recce vehicles of choice? Amongst them a turretless tank. What do you all think would be useful modifications for this Coyote in this role?
 
Blue Max said:
Reccesoldier, your description sounds to me like a Panhard VBL. 8)

Again, big windows and comfy seats are not required. I was thinking more along the lines of the Wiesel 2, or George's redesigned Lynx.

I see no need for the kind of compromise some deem necessary to fill the full spectrum of warfighting.

Helmets on/
I did my Lynx course in Germany during Fasching (sp?) and it seemed every little town we drove into was having a party/parade. Many many people came up and talked to us while we were mounted and waiting for the parade to go through the town. There was no "barrier" to these conversations caused by the vehicle, at most all we had to do was switch off. One lovely Frau actually cleaned my driving goggles for me as I sat in the drivers hole.  ;D
Helmets off/
 
Something similar to the Ferret could still have many useful & practical functions in today's Army.  Small, fast, light armour, QUIET...... I don't know, but it seems to me stealth is one of the key elements to recce, and the fact that you can hear a bloody Coyote coming from several km's away kinda defeats the purpose.
 
These coyotes are that noisy? I assume that's engine noise - which implies a mismatch between engine and resonator/silencer. Surely something easy to fix? The Lynx and m113's from my era - you could hear the tracks long before the engine. I do remember around '77 watching a group of ferrets pass by when in Wainwright - and seeing the same on the Green-line  (The Brits) in Cyprus - dead silence.... Would you prefer perhaps, some manufacturer to offer a millennium update of the Saracen - optimised for recce?
 
Here's another option out of Israel - assuming that the RG-32 is the finalized design maybe some of this technology could be married to it.

The vehicle can be driven by a mounted soldier.  Or the soldier can dismount and drive the vehicle forward while staying in cover.

December 2005

Robot Allows Safe Recon in Hot Areas

Edited by Robert H. Williams

A new robotic vehicleâ ”called Avant Guardâ ”just entered an increasingly crowded market for systems that can conduct surveillance and reconnaissance duties in risky urban battlefields. Built by Elbit Systems Ltd., of Haifa, Israel, it also can be soldier driven.

A sensory perception package for identification and avoidance of fixed and moving obstacles comprises the heart of this vehicle. It can be mission plotted. Ground station operators can alter missions in mid-course.

The robot may be equipped with a variety of packagesâ ”electro optical sensors, communication relay gear, jamming devices and weapon systemsâ ”depending on the task at hand.
 
Reminds me of the old 2CV (Deux chevaux) - the French version of the Volkswagen Beetle.

Nothing for looks admittedly.  Its the remote control option that intrigues.  Could perhaps apply that to another vehicle.
 
Kinda ugly like a "Citroen "Duck", but my first impression was of a "Smart" car.

The 'Remote' idea may have something to it.
 
Hey, anything that serves as an IED magnet would be good....
 
Looking at some WWII sites I suddenly realized the SdKfz 222 has some of the attributes we might find desirable in modern guise. The hull form  is very similar to a modern "mine proof", and it was very nimble and well armed for its time (a 20mm cannon and 7.62 coax). You can see the inspiration for more modern vehicles like the Ferret scout car.

For our new recce vehicle, a similar hull form with the crew seated so they face outwards for better situational awareness, combined with a modern drive train and electronics might be a good starting point. The vehicle is small enough to mount and dismount over the roof (as with the original), since door or hatches should be minimized for protection. On the other hand, the need to mount and dismount might need a door or hatch in the rear at least. With modern materials science, this might even be moot.
 
I did a JANUS ex with the RCD this past weekend, and it has me thinking about some of these things.

I don't want to give too much away about the ex itself, but the nutshell summary is that it was a Regimental-level advancing screen three squadrons up. Each squadron had a Coyote troop and two GWagon troops, and we had routes to clear and a series of points to investigate.

The ex itself was outstanding; difficult terrain, complex ROEs, and a "new reality" OPFOR, not just the usual Motor Rifle Regiment. It really stretched the SHQs and the troop leaders.

I had one of the GWagon troops, and had a couple of interesting things happen:

1) Clearing a bridge as a troop level obstacle. I've got E Ptl with their vehicles on the near side and their dismounts on the far side. I push C Ptl over the obstacle with HQ Ptl following (2 callsigns - 8 car troop) One bound up from the bridge, 32C makes contact with a lone OPFOR armed with an RPG-18 (or maybe RPG-16?) maybe 400m to his north, in a woodline. ROE prohibits engaging unless fired upon, so my plan is to pull A Ptl across the bridge and then leave E Ptl as a piquet. In the meantime, everybody else is placed at what I think is extreme range for the RPG, pointy end towards enemy and covering, until I can get A Ptl across. Then the contact lights up 32C and we all open up on him. He is supressed pretty quickly, but he doesn't go full K until I bring a couple of callsigns up close - at which point his buddy with an RPK (previously unseen) lights up 32G.

I figure the woodline is probably infested with them and pull back to get enough distance to safely call in a fire mission, and then 39 shows up in his Coyote and takes care of business.

2) I go into an all-around defence around the smoldering hulks of 32C and 32G so 39C can come forward with the MRT and recover them and evac casulties & PWs. While this is going on, 33 (the other GW troop) who had been held in reserve, takes over the route from me and carries on. I detatch A Ptl to escort 39C back to the ECP, re-org, and follow along behind 33.

3) 33 makes contact with another RPG - who again doesn't fire - and leaves a Ptl to piquet. Then a battery of the guns rolls right over the contact (long story, don't ask) and the contact lights up two of the guns. 33's Ptl joins in to assist, and Rambo lights both of them up.

4) I move up and take up observation of Rambo, with the intent of re-establishing contact and then calling in fire. But my fire mission is scrubbed, and we really want Rambo dead (one guy with an RPG!) so I set up a 4-car assault with 1 car in the firebase and three line abreast behind a crest. I figure that 4 C6s ought to supress Rambo and then we can roll over him to finish the job. Rambo is supressed, I surround him, and then he un-supresses himself and lights up all four of my GWagons in about 30 seconds. (!) Two of these are stone cold dead, two are MF kills where the crew is OK but they can't move or shoot. Whoops.

This sequence made the AAR.  :)

5) On a whim - and because I'm really pissed now - I dismount the observers from the MF kills and in SECONDS they have K-ed Rambo

6) We ENDEX for the day shortly thereafter, and we have a little Sqn-level AAR to talk about successes and not-so-sucesses. It is generally agreed that GWagons make shitty tanks, that the C6 is not working to supress/kill contacts very well, where the Coyotes *are* very successful - as are dismounts, apparently.

7) On the morrow, the plan is that I will take command of a composite troop consiting of the remains of 32 and 33, but overnight any of my callsigns who hadn't been recovered by 39C are reconstituted, and so I wind up with a 4 GWagon troop (with 4 more in the workshop being repaired - I would get 2 of these back before ENDEX) Given that I'm a little understrength, I'l track the route while the other two troops handle the point recces.

8) Halfway through a long E-W  leafy defile, I make contact with another lone RPG. This time, the lead callsign (32B) fucks off forward while the supporting callsign drops back into cover. This saves both callsigns, but leaves the troop cut in half and out of contact. I dismount all the observers, and ticky-tack them back through the woods until we make contact. The contact tries to move north; I cut him off with a dismount. He tries to move south, I cut him off with another dismount. I now have him surrounded at all 4 cardinal points about 100m away. He opens up but is quickly smacked by the dismounts - no casulties!

9) On the far side of the defile, another RPG contact. This time everybody scatters into cover and scampers out of range, while a Coyote comes forward and engages. While that's going on, I creep everybody into extreme C6 range and provide covering fire (I'm afraid he'll un-supress and smoke the Coyote) That works - and forms the pattern for all subsequent contacts - GWagon makes contact, flees, re-establishes contact at extreme range, Coyote comes forward and engages, GWagon provides support.

10) In the AAR, we learn that two of the other squadrons actually broke up their Coyote troop, giving a Ptl of Coyotes to each GWagon troop in exchange for a Ptl of GWagons, and that having the extra firepower on call and integral to the troop worked very well - and I agree.

Now, conclusions (given that this is a JANUS ex and not necessarily indicative of the real world)

1) Even with a roof hatch and the C6 on the pintle, a GWaqon makes a crappy assault vehicle, and he who tries to use it as such will see them brewed up.

2) Given that the vehicle cannot sustain any direct fire, the best way to handle contacts in a GWagon-only troop is to fall back into cover and dismount observers who then winkle forward on foot, staying unseen.

3) Given the reliance on dismounts, I'm starting to think that having 2 observers per GWagon would be VERY useful. That'd make the GWagon troops have the same man count as the Coyote troops - but a Ptl would have a section- to play with, and a full troop almost a full platoon - not that they'd be employed as a full platoon very often, but it gives a troop leader a LOT more flexibility, and (according to JANUS at least) can be very effective. If we're going to be doing more of this Cavalry stuff in the future, it's something I'd strongly recommend.

4) A GWagon troop with a couple of attached Coyotes is MUCH MUCH more survivable and powerful than a pure GWagon troop. Coyotes may not be as good as the GWagon when it comes to making first contact without being seen as the GWagon is, but once you make contact, and ESPECIALLY if the enemey is shooting at you, Coyotes are much better at self defence.

5) JANUS rocks. There was a whole lotta learning going on (just the interaction with 39C on casulty& PW recovery was golden) and it was GREAT to be able to try different things to see how they work (or don't) without fucking troops over in the process.

DG
 
Sir;

Reading that scenerio I would have to agree about throwing a second Trunk Monkey into each c/s and an attached support or assault troop. We should train like this in the real world instead of driving down flat roads looking for BTR/MilCots.

Storming down a road only to come under contact by a lone or small patrol of guys packing RPG's and then sending a small dismounted force forward to snuff them out I feel would be great training and probably more realistic to today's threats.

Anyway, I'm getting a little off topic here. But your JANUS Ex sure makes the G-Wagon look good in Essex County, but perhaps not so good over there in the roles we inted to use them as.

 
But your JANUS Ex sure makes the G-Wagon look good in Essex County, but perhaps not so good over there in the roles we inted to use them as.

Well, a good part of this is that the GWagon is a tool - and not all tools are hammers - and troop leaders who insist on using GWagons as hammers soon won't have any GWagons left. :D

Once I started treating the GWagon as a soft-skinned vehicle that couldn't take hits, the surviveability and success rate of the troop went way, way up.

Something else to keep in mind is that there really isn't a good way to simulate getting into a proper turret-down position in JANUS, so if I had LOS to the contact, I was tracks up to the world. A GWagon with just the gun peeking up over the terrain would be much more surviveable - at least until the bad guy came over the hill. ;)

Reading that scenerio I would have to agree about throwing a second Trunk Monkey into each c/s and an attached support or assault troop. We should train like this in the real world instead of driving down flat roads looking for BTR/MilCots.

Well, it's all about building experience, isn't it? I can't speak for 1 Troop, but I know that 2 Troop has a pretty broad range of experience and skill levels. We have some very experienced and qualified soldiers, and some... not so much. But the troop is only as strong as the weakest link, so we need to build training scenarios that strengthen the weaker links to the level of the stronger links. That means doing more walking than running, I'm afraid, which I admit can get a little boring for those capable of running - or even flying.

But I also have seen a great deal of progress (in my troop at least) so this plan is working - and things like this JANUS ex allow me to work through a little walk-run-fly cycle of my own, without having to drag troops through the process at the same time.

Storming down a road only to come under contact by a lone or small patrol of guys packing RPG's and then sending a small dismounted force forward to snuff them out I feel would be great training and probably more realistic to today's threats.

Well, that's exactly what 2 Troop did on the last ex out in the county. Charlie Ptl made contact, I detatched Alpha to bypass, and myself, the Charlie commander, and a JAFFO dismounted, set up an OP, and then smoked the bad guy with Arty. If I had had a full 7 cars out there (and no Arty), I might have considered a little section attack to flush them out of there.

Certainly the doctrine is encouraging us to be more agressive, when we can do so within our own means and without risking the entire mission on the outcome.

And as far as Essex County goes.... yeah, there's no contour lines, and you can watch your dog run away for three days, and we can't really get off the road - but that's not entirely unrealistic. In areas with signifigant mine threats, you're just as confined to roads as if you didn't have land clearence in the county, and not every place in the world is as rolling as Gagetown. Don't be down on the county; things could be worse.

DG
 
;) Yup

Still if your going to start changing doctrine, it gives you someplace to begin, before you start wasting fuel.
 
Nice debrief DG-41.

DG-41 said:
1) Clearing a bridge as a troop level obstacle. I've got E Ptl with their vehicles on the near side and their dismounts on the far side. I push C Ptl over the obstacle with HQ Ptl following (2 callsigns - 8 car troop) One bound up from the bridge, 32C makes contact with a lone OPFOR armed with an RPG-18 (or maybe RPG-16?) maybe 400m to his north, in a woodline. ROE prohibits engaging unless fired upon, so my plan is to pull A Ptl across the bridge and then leave E Ptl as a piquet. In the meantime, everybody else is placed at what I think is extreme range for the RPG, pointy end towards enemy and covering, until I can get A Ptl across. Then the contact lights up 32C and we all open up on him. He is supressed pretty quickly, but he doesn't go full K until I bring a couple of callsigns up close - at which point his buddy with an RPK (previously unseen) lights up 32G.

Sounds like you could have used a scout/sniper team ahead/with your advance?

It is generally agreed that GWagons make shitty tanks, that the C6 is not working to supress/kill contacts very well, where the Coyotes *are* very successful - as are dismounts, apparently.

Boy, that "Saber for Stealth" booklet of mine is bouncing around on my bookshelf.

4) A GWagon troop with a couple of attached Coyotes is MUCH MUCH more survivable and powerful than a pure GWagon troop. Coyotes may not be as good as the GWagon when it comes to making first contact without being seen as the GWagon is, but once you make contact, and ESPECIALLY if the enemey is shooting at you, Coyotes are much better at self defence.

There was an article in the Army Doctrine and Training Bulletin on this - they found that this layout worked better than keeping LPV and Coyote assets seperate.  I believe it was written by Major Barr.
 
Side question, is this JANUS anything like TacOps (you guys would probably know it as TacOpsCav)?
 
Back
Top